|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 15, 2012 16:57:57 GMT -5
What the Obama Administration is doing, deliberately and calculatedly, is to distract and divide American's attention onto issues that Obama and his cronies believe will benefit them in the coming election. By doing this, they hope to redirect and displace Americans' anger, frustration, and sense of hopelessness about the economy, jobs, and the precarious state of the world, AWAY from Obama and focus all our psychic energy onto the manufactured class(1% vs 99%), race(hey!..look over there a black kid got shot)... and gender crises("War on Women")...over which Obama believes he has the upper hand.
The abysmal record of the Obama Adminsitration on dealing with the economy and on dealing with our allies and enemies abroad hardly matches up with the promises of "hope and change" that the Obamessiah promised.
Even the most devoted of his acolytes have likely begun to suspect that this messiah is a false god.... and that his promises are nothing but obvious diversionary tactitcs and attmepts to mislead.
...But mis-leadership is really all that can be expected from the pretentious and bullying demagogue who is currently our President.
....and to make "Mr Sensitive" Bo862 happy..... I would like to start this tread and say this....I can't wait to get the libtards, retards or dumbasses out of office.
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Apr 15, 2012 17:11:34 GMT -5
Except his record isn't really, by historical standards, "abysmal".
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 15, 2012 17:32:33 GMT -5
....I like the way you added... "historical standards" to protect him...that's so sweet....but what you are saying is.... if there was no historical standards......his record would still be "abysmal" right....lol
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Apr 15, 2012 21:25:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Apr 15, 2012 21:42:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 16, 2012 14:55:17 GMT -5
…its not data, its’s the way Democrats uses MATH to influence ingnorance…its sometime its whats left out of the equation thats the problem. …first of all, I hate posting charts, most of them are unreliable, but since you guys like to post these charts and call them data…..I have to find time to comment on at least one….I would love to do all, but I just don’t have the time…… I’ll just pick one and start with your first one you posted…since you like to link it because I have seen it before in here…and as always I lose a couple of I.Q. points every time I see one www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htmYears Office % debt increase12/31/1981 REAGAN $1,028,729,000,000 12/31/1988 REAGAN $2,684,392,000,000 }---- 189%12/31/1989 BUSH $2,952,994,000,000 12/31/1992 BUSH $4,177,009,000,000 }---- 55.6%12/31/1993 CLINTON $4,535,687,054,406 12/31/2000 CLINTON $5,662,216,013,697 }---- 36%12/31/2001 BUSH $5,943,438,563,436 12/31/2008 BUSH $10,699,804,864,612 }-- 89%12/31/2009 OBAMA $12,311,349,677,512 12/31/2011 OBAMA $15,125,898,976,397 }--- 41%..The Democrats Math: for instance.. as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller. Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, that’s only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same. …so let me try to explain in a 5th grade sort of way so you guys can understand these charts.. Jobs1stb4polarbear is President and starts with $10 in debt and adds $10 more to the debt, he has just increased the debt 100% $10 to $20 = 100% increase in debt Driveshaftgrunt becomes the next president and starts at $20, because that’s the debt that president jobs1 left him…..he adds $10 more to the debt, he has just increased the debt by 50%...even though he increased the debt the same amount as president Jobs1st.. $20 to 30 = 50% increase in debt ......Etc...etc.... I can play with % numbers also and make Obama look bad...charts suck! Reagan: plus 14.9 percentage points GHW Bush: plus 7.1 percentage points Clinton: down 13.4 percentage points GW Bush: plus 5.6 11.6 percentage points Obama: plus 24.6 19.7 percentage points |
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Apr 16, 2012 15:45:14 GMT -5
I know this regardless of data,as an autoworker,when Clinton was in office,Ford did well and I did very well.When bush was in office the auto companies in america nearly ceased to exist,and my pay has been stagnant.Now we we have Obama and Ford is making money and profit sharing has returned, I think u get the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Apr 16, 2012 16:09:31 GMT -5
...really, my dick is bigger then yours responds......well then, we did not have ford workers working for $15/hr either, gas prices weren't this high and unicorns were flying under Bush...lol ...please, lets not go there...
|
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Apr 17, 2012 4:36:28 GMT -5
ooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy,,,,,dicks and unicorns,not sure where your headed with THAT (;^)}
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Apr 17, 2012 9:45:02 GMT -5
Except his record isn't really, by historical standards, "abysmal". Abysmal = Jimmy Carter Abysmal #2 = Obama (thus far) or If you have a turd and break off a small chunk you still have a turd, just not as large. I find it amusing how people try to say Obama is not that bad because... (insert excuse here). Its easier to say a guy with little experience was given a chance and it did not work out very well. Hopefully he does not get another try and digs the hole deeper, again. The real unemployment numbers are much higher than listed and the economy is still listing with the billions of $$$ Obama blindly dumped into it. It was similar to throwing darts at a board of balloons and hit nothing. Nice try and it was an expensive one. You have several politicians dabbling around with the economy and business all of which they have not a clue about. Unless that changes its going to cost all of us a lot more now and down the road. |
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Apr 17, 2012 20:32:01 GMT -5
I'm assuming the argument here on "abysmal" is based primarily on Debt to GDP ratio? At least that's the example used.
Anybody wanna guess what, according to the CBO, the three biggest factors are for increasing the debt? At least for the last 3 years?
Anybody?
Again, we have HISTORICALLY low tax rates at the same time we're funding two wars at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. All of them PRECEDING Obama's presidency.
Debt to GDP arguments become less black and white when you're talking about a trough as deep as -8% and the prospect of aggregate demand collapse......
I'm not making excuses, and I'm certainly not singing the man's praises. But several MASSIVE historical trends converged when the man took office.
When people lose their mind over the debt in relation to Obama, it begs the question: How much of the debt are directly related to his policies? and the truth, in terms of raw economics, is not that much.
And for the GOP to claim they'll tackle the debt by LOWERING taxes, leave military spending intact and only tinker w/ Medicare and SS, is just nuts. It totally removed from reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 18, 2012 3:36:58 GMT -5
I just look at what Obamas voting record is and what he believes in.That's why I wont vote for him
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Apr 18, 2012 7:23:20 GMT -5
I just look at what Obamas voting record is and what he believes in.That's why I wont vote for him That and what he has done and trying to do is another reason NOT to vote for the guy.No one can afford his ideas. Obama's budget (his own spending and no one else) is creating larger deficits and adding to the debt according to the CBO. No experience in budgets and spending and trying to get those same issues under control is a Hail Mary attempt by Obama. I think your chances of hitting the lottery are better or having a blind guy drive a car around the block,twice. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on May 1, 2012 0:47:00 GMT -5
Here is a different perspective.
What the Romney/republican Obama Administration campaign is doing, deliberately and calculatedly, is to distract and divide American's attention onto issues that Romney Obama and his cronies believe will benefit them in the coming election. By doing this, they hope to redirect direct and displace place Americans' anger, frustration, and sense of hopelessness about the economy, jobs, and the precarious state of the world, AWAY from toward Obama and hide the focus all our psychic energy onto the manufactured class(1% vs 99%), race(hey!..look over there a black kid got shot)... and gender crises("War on Women")... because these may hurt republican reelection odds. over which Obama believes he has the upper hand.
The abysmal record of the Republican controlled house and their filibuster ability in the senate Obama Adminsitration on dealing with the economy and on dealing with our allies and enemies abroad reflects hardly matches up with the promises of "hope and change" that the Obamessiah promised making Obama a one term president their single most important goal.
Even the most devoted of republican his acolytes have likely begun to suspect that Mitch meant it when he said regaining the white house was their most important goal this messiah is a false god.... and that his promises are nothing but obvious diversionary tactitcs and attmepts to mislead.
...But mis-leadership is really all that can be expected from the pretentious and bullying demagogue who is currently controlling the house and filibustering everything in the senate our President.
....and to make "Mr Sensitive" Bo862 happy..... I would like to start this tread and say this....I can't wait to get the libtards, retards or dumbasses out of office.
What you accuse the democrats of doing are a part of U.S. politics. But for some reason you ignore that your buddies in the gop are even better at political asshattery in our system than democrats. As driveshaft pointed out picking a timeframe of the biggest recession since 1929 to show your disfavor puts more than just a little bias into your “understanding of the numbers.”
Politics as usual is the problem in the U.S. not the Democrats or Obama. Unfortunately your willingness to act like a bobble-head in the name of the Republican Party keeps you from seeing the bigger picture.
Speaking of bobble heads - be careful around unicorns and dicks… you’ll put your eye out!
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on May 1, 2012 12:42:14 GMT -5
....yes the "you do it too" argument....
It's obvious that Obama's strategy for reelection is twofold; with the implied message that there is no alternative to voting for Obama. He's counting on the decades, even generations of propaganda that the media has been actively complicit in portraying republicans (and most conservatives) as selfish, greedy supporters of the status quo. That viewpoint, coupled with his overt assertions that Congress' obstructionism and covert suggestions that the Supreme Court (if they reject the individual mandate) are responsible for his lack of progress in fundamentally changing America, so as to bring hope and change (gag). He's counting on his party's propaganda organ; the MSM to beat that meme's drumbeat incessantly.
It may well be a winning strategy, certainly it will be with his base.
So the question to be answered is, will it be effective with the independents, who shall as always, determine who wins the election.
Most independents don't pay attention to politics, so in the few months when they are focused on the election, how Romney responds to Obama's lies, distortions and distractions will determine the election.
Is Romney a 'counter puncher'? If so, he'll react effectively, if not, it will be lights out...because the media is going to support Obama all the way and as most independents aren't watching FOX, listening to conservative radio or reading conservative blogs, any positive impression of Romney that independents acquire will be determined by how well prepared he is to respond to Obama's dog and pony show.
|
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on May 1, 2012 18:31:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by javajoe on May 1, 2012 23:05:27 GMT -5
Damn people, if the Republicans had their way Ford and the rest of the US auto makers would have gone belly up.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on May 2, 2012 8:34:47 GMT -5
Damn people, if the Republicans had their way Ford and the rest of the US auto makers would have gone belly up. No, our competition would not have unfairly benefited and all Ford workers paying for it with tax dollars and union dues. The only person that can make Ford fail is the customer and them not buying our products. To lament that somehow only democrats and the like minded is responsible for Fords success is as foolish as thinking the world is flat. (Its not for the record) |
|
|
|
Post by ktpelec on May 2, 2012 15:22:59 GMT -5
The Republicans would have made sure the UAW was gone....
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on May 2, 2012 15:52:18 GMT -5
...we were so lucky in 2008, we had a Democrat president George Bush to pass the bail out money(tarp) to bail out the auto industry and save many UAW jobs......oh wait!, he's a RUPUBLICAN!!!! ...that fucker!!!
...please lets not forget history...even though Obama and democrats are trying to make you forget...
|
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on May 2, 2012 17:50:18 GMT -5
The Republicans would have made sure the UAW was gone.... Wasnt Obama that signed the trade agreement (for automobiles) with Korea that would benefit them and not us? |
|
|
|
Post by fordwife on May 2, 2012 20:43:46 GMT -5
Without even getting into the economics of it which can be spun so either side benefits, what about the fact that the Republicans are trying to take the country's (especially women) civil rights back about 60 years? No birth control? No right to choose? Equal pay not important?
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on May 3, 2012 7:31:03 GMT -5
Without even getting into the economics of it which can be spun so either side benefits, what about the fact that the Republicans are trying to take the country's (especially women) civil rights back about 60 years? No birth control? No right to choose? Equal pay not important? You cant be serious of if you are I feel sorry for you. |
|
|
|
Post by fordwife on May 3, 2012 11:34:42 GMT -5
cal50, There have been laws already passed so either you are not paying attention or you do not care. My guess would be the second.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on May 3, 2012 11:52:14 GMT -5
cal50, There have been laws already passed so either you are not paying attention or you do not care. My guess would be the second. Specific example please~ |
|
|
|
Post by ackspac on May 3, 2012 18:35:15 GMT -5
Without even getting into the economics of it which can be spun so either side benefits, what about the fact that the Republicans are trying to take the country's (especially women) civil rights back about 60 years? No birth control? No right to choose? Equal pay not important? Female employees make considerably less then male employees at the White House under the current admin. Just seen this on MSNBC Sunday evening. This has some good info, LOL!: www.libertynews.com/2012/04/28/tom-hanksbarack-obama-movie-gets-a-makeover-the-road-weve-really-traveled/ |
|
|
|
Post by fordwife on May 4, 2012 19:57:29 GMT -5
cal50, House bill 2625 in Arizona gives an employer the right to fire a woman for using birth control unless it is for non-contraceptive purposes. It also gives insurance companies the right to deny coverage of birth control, unless it can be proven it is being used for other medicinal reasons. Wonder if they are going to stop covering Viagra? Not anytime soon would be my guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by fordwife on May 4, 2012 20:02:09 GMT -5
Oh yeah and I forgot about the laws in several states (Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia) that require a woman having an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, to view ultrasound pictures of the child immediately before the procedure. Nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on May 5, 2012 7:23:27 GMT -5
aaah yes....and this is how Huffpost, PMSnbc,liberal media and democrats .....influences ingnorance
The head line...."Arizona Law Could Allow Employers to Fire Workers for Using Birth Control"
.....but you never bothered to read the bill itself. It specifies that it applies only to religious organization. "Religious employer is defined as a nonprofit entity that primarily employs and serves persons who share the religious tenants of the entity (A.R.S. § 20-826)." It also states that the employee is PROTECTED if she decides to get her own insurance or pay for the prescription herself. There is no provision for firing someone. This isn't an endorsement of the bill at all, just a suggestion that maybe it's worth reading before thinking the government says you can't have sex or coming to some other inaccurate conclusion.
I'm a liberaltarian, I'm for individual rights, but I'm also for religious organizations following there doctrine(believes)!
...sorry i can't go any further at this time...i'm on my cell.
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on May 5, 2012 18:09:24 GMT -5
cal50, House bill 2625 in Arizona gives an employer the right to fire a woman for using birth control unless it is for non-contraceptive purposes. It also gives insurance companies the right to deny coverage of birth control, unless it can be proven it is being used for other medicinal reasons. Wonder if they are going to stop covering Viagra? Not anytime soon would be my guess. A quick read~ fwd4.me/0zxHIf you repeat a lie it does not make it true no matter if you came up with it or take the ACLU talking points. In simple terms your quote is total BS. |
|
