Discussion:
Baracks promise of Post-Partisanship.... FAILURE
(too old to reply)
MioMyo
2009-04-06 21:50:50 UTC
Permalink
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......


http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-approval-historic

PARTISAN GAP IN OBAMA JOB APPROVAL WIDEST IN MODERN ERA

For all of his hopes about bipartisanship, Barack Obama has the most
polarized early job approval ratings of any president in the past four
decades. The 61-point partisan gap in opinions about Obama's job performance
is the result of a combination of high Democratic ratings for the
president -- 88% job approval among Democrats -- and relatively low approval
ratings among Republicans (27%).

By comparison, there was a somewhat smaller 51-point partisan gap in views
of George W. Bush's job performance in April 2001, a few months into his
first term. At that time, Republican enthusiasm for Bush was comparable to
how Democrats feel about Obama today, but there was substantially less
criticism from members of the opposition party. Among Democrats, 36%
approved of Bush's job performance in April 2001; that compares with a 27%
job approval rating for Obama among Republicans today.

The partisan gap in Bill Clinton's early days was also substantially smaller
than what Obama faces, largely because Democrats were less enthusiastic
about Clinton. In early April 1993, 71% of Democrats approved of Clinton's
job performance, which is 17 points lower than Obama's current job approval
among Democrats. Republican ratings of Clinton at that point (26%) are
comparable to their current ratings of Obama today (27%).

The growing partisan divide in presidential approval ratings is part of a
long-term trend. Going back in time, partisanship was far less evident in
the early job approval ratings for both Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. In
fact, a majority of Republicans (56%) approved of Carter's job performance
in late March 1977, and a majority of Democrats (55%) approved of Nixon's
performance at a comparable point in his first term.
MioMyo
2009-04-07 01:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-appr...
PARTISAN GAP IN OBAMA JOB APPROVAL WIDEST IN MODERN ERA
You can thank the party of NO and their moronic followers for that,
MooMoo.
You've lost the moderates in your party and all that's left is the
racist and Nazi factions.
===========================
...and Newt with his "laser beam" eyes.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gingrich-attack-north-korea-electromagnetic-pulse
It's goo to know that you idiots finally admit you don't believe in
bipartisanship unless it means conservatives concede to liberal
dictates.......
GOP Minefield
2009-04-07 13:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-appr...
PARTISAN GAP IN OBAMA JOB APPROVAL WIDEST IN MODERN ERA
You can thank the party of NO and their moronic followers for that,
MooMoo.
You've lost the moderates in your party and all that's left is the
racist and Nazi factions.
===========================
...and Newt with his "laser beam" eyes.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gingrich-attack-north-korea-electromagnetic-pulse
It's goo to know that you idiots finally admit you don't believe in
bipartisanship unless it means conservatives concede to liberal
dictates.......
We Dems gave you too much rope.
MioMyo
2009-04-08 02:15:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by GOP Minefield
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-appr...
PARTISAN GAP IN OBAMA JOB APPROVAL WIDEST IN MODERN ERA
You can thank the party of NO and their moronic followers for that,
MooMoo.
You've lost the moderates in your party and all that's left is the
racist and Nazi factions.
===========================
...and Newt with his "laser beam" eyes.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gingrich-attack-north-korea-electromagnetic-pulse
It's goo to know that you idiots finally admit you don't believe in
bipartisanship unless it means conservatives concede to liberal
dictates.......
We Dems gave you too much rope.
Your messiah lied like most libtards on the left do. Wait till his lie start
biting you on the ass cause that time is coming around the bend....
MioMyo
2009-04-08 02:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1178/polarized-partisan-gap-in-obama-appr...
PARTISAN GAP IN OBAMA JOB APPROVAL WIDEST IN MODERN ERA
You can thank the party of NO and their moronic followers for that,
MooMoo.
You've lost the moderates in your party and all that's left is the
racist and Nazi factions.
===========================
...and Newt with his "laser beam" eyes.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gingrich-attack-north-korea...
It's goo to know that you idiots finally admit you don't believe in
bipartisanship unless it means conservatives concede to liberal
dictates.......-
<Rightards hate it when the other side plays the game by the rules they
<created.

This liberal code word "Bipartisanship" was first touted by leftist
extremist$ who knew they never intended to reciprocate. You know it & I know
it since most liberals are habitual liars.

<Where was the bipartisanship when the Repugs controlled Congress, you
<fucking hypocrite?

You had your head buried up you ass, so you missed it.

<Not one Democratic sponsored bill was allowed on the floor for
<consideration during the 6 years the Repugs controlled Congress.

Liberals were permitted to introduce amendments at will, unlike dems who now
won't even allow Republicans to speak on the floor. Just look at that little
tirade Barney Frank had about a week ago, tard.....

<So, fuck you, MooMoo.

The pendulum is swinging and fast. Soon it will be your time to GFY,
libtard.
who are you?
2009-04-07 03:56:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
The republican't want nothing but failure so why should they attach their
carriage to a winning horse. Their great god RU$H says "failure is good
for this country!" Failure appears to be the repubican't goal.

No question who to vote for in the NEXT election!

Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
MioMyo
2009-04-07 11:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by who are you?
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
The republican't want nothing but failure so why should they attach their
carriage to a winning horse. Their great god RU$H says "failure is good
for this country!" Failure appears to be the repubican't goal.
No question who to vote for in the NEXT election!
Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
You are PARTLY CORRECT, of course- correct in that should you come wanting
to kill me, I WANT YOU TO FAIL.

The same goes for bamby in that in his quest to trash the constitution and
forge his socialist, fascist utopia- YES HE SHOULD FAIL in that endeavor.

But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR

He claimed to be post racial........ LIAR.....

And now he can't even stay in DC and get to work. He thinks his job is a non
stop campaign trashing America.............

That's why you are PARTLY WRONG, of course- wrong in that bamby already is a
failure......

That's just a fact you will have to live with, libtard.............
GOP Minefield
2009-04-07 13:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by who are you?
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
The republican't want nothing but failure so why should they attach their
carriage to a winning horse. Their great god RU$H says "failure is good
for this country!" Failure appears to be the repubican't goal.
No question who to vote for in the NEXT election!
Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
You are PARTLY CORRECT, of course- correct in that should you come wanting
to kill me, I WANT YOU TO FAIL.
The same goes for bamby in that in his quest to trash the constitution and
forge his socialist, fascist utopia- YES HE SHOULD FAIL in that endeavor.
But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR
He claimed to be post racial........ LIAR.....
And now he can't even stay in DC and get to work. He thinks his job is a
non stop campaign trashing America.............
That's why you are PARTLY WRONG, of course- wrong in that bamby already is
a failure......
That's just a fact you will have to live with, libtard.............
Bush had 8 years and he managed to take a Texas dump on the World. Time for
a different approach.
You'll have to live with it, conserva-whiner.
kujebak
2009-04-07 19:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by who are you?
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
The republican't want nothing but failure so why should they attach their
carriage to a winning horse. Their great god RU$H says "failure is good
for this country!" Failure appears to be the repubican't goal.
No question who to vote for in the NEXT election!
Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
You are PARTLY CORRECT, of course- correct in that should you come wanting
to kill me, I WANT YOU TO FAIL.
The same goes for bamby in that in his quest to trash the constitution and
forge his socialist, fascist utopia- YES HE SHOULD FAIL in that endeavor.
But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR
He claimed to be post racial........ LIAR.....
And now he can't even stay in DC and get to work. He thinks his job is a
non stop campaign trashing America.............
That's why you are PARTLY WRONG, of course- wrong in that bamby already is
a failure......
That's just a fact you will have to live with, libtard.............
Bush had 8 years and he managed to take a Texas dump on the World.  Time for
a different approach.
You'll have to live with it, conserva-whiner.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Time to spread the pain and suffering as far up
the socioeconomic ladder as possible, right? ;-)
How does 20% unemployment rate by the end
of this year grab you? Take out the public sector
the only part of the economy that will clearly not
be allowed to suffer, and the unemployment figure
will go up to an even more meaningful number.
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan. What has Obama done since
his inauguration to turn the economy around other
than further grow the size of government?
Dave Fritzinger
2009-04-07 20:37:17 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 7, 9:16 am, kujebak <***@eudoramail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
kujebak
2009-04-07 23:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
Dave Fritzinger
2009-04-07 23:43:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.
kujebak
2009-04-08 00:43:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But the point is that in 2008 the economy grew until it
became evident the Democrats were going to gain the
White House with a radical left wing candidate pursuing
a radical left wing economic agenda. The overall drop in
annualized GDP for 2008 was only 0.8%. That includes
the 6.5% decline in the last three months of the year.
Same thing happened during Carter's first year in office.
The economy went to hell.
Dave Fritzinger
2009-04-08 00:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But the point is that in 2008 the economy grew until it
became evident the Democrats were going to gain the
White House with a radical left wing candidate pursuing
a radical left wing economic agenda. The overall drop in
annualized GDP for 2008 was only 0.8%. That includes
the 6.5% decline in the last three months of the year.
Same thing happened during Carter's first year in office.
The economy went to hell.
The recession began in Dec., 2007. The economy didn't grow during
2008. Your statement was a lie. And, you know that, since you are now
trying to say that it *only shrank by 0.8% during 2008*. Meaning, you
admit you were wrong. Why don't you just admit it, hater.

You can't blame the Democrats for this, because it started on Bush's
watch.
kujebak
2009-04-08 05:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But the point is that in 2008 the economy grew until it
became evident the Democrats were going to gain the
White House with a radical left wing candidate pursuing
a radical left wing economic agenda. The overall drop in
annualized GDP for 2008 was only 0.8%. That includes
the 6.5% decline in the last three months of the year.
Same thing happened during Carter's first year in office.
The economy went to hell.
The recession began in Dec., 2007. The economy didn't grow during
2008. Your statement was a lie. And, you know that, since you are now
trying to say that it *only shrank by 0.8% during 2008*. Meaning, you
admit you were wrong. Why don't you just admit it, hater.
The economy did grow in 2008. You just can't read.

http://tinyurl.com/cp6gpl

Hate is the staple of a Marxist ideologue.
Post by Dave Fritzinger
You can't blame the Democrats for this, because it started on Bush's
watch.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How much longer is that going to matter?
Dave Fritzinger
2009-04-08 05:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But the point is that in 2008 the economy grew until it
became evident the Democrats were going to gain the
White House with a radical left wing candidate pursuing
a radical left wing economic agenda. The overall drop in
annualized GDP for 2008 was only 0.8%. That includes
the 6.5% decline in the last three months of the year.
Same thing happened during Carter's first year in office.
The economy went to hell.
The recession began in Dec., 2007. The economy didn't grow during
2008. Your statement was a lie. And, you know that, since you are now
trying to say that it *only shrank by 0.8% during 2008*. Meaning, you
admit you were wrong. Why don't you just admit it, hater.
The economy did grow in 2008. You just can't read.
http://tinyurl.com/cp6gpl
Your cite doesn't support what you are saying. Why am I not
surprised?
Post by kujebak
Hate is the staple of a Marxist ideologue.
Yet, the only hate I see here is from the right wingers. Just read the
posts by MioMyo, or viper spit, or Stan. Or, for that matter, from
yourself. Nothing but hatred there.
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
You can't blame the Democrats for this, because it started on Bush's
watch.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How much longer is that going to matter?
When the economy starts to improve (and, it is beginning to show some
signs of doing so), you right-wingers will find something else to
bitch and moan about. That is a prediction. Hell, it is already
beginning. We have nutters like Carpathia/wild eyed in wonder calling
President Obama both a communist and a fascist. How silly is that?
kujebak
2009-04-09 00:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But the point is that in 2008 the economy grew until it
became evident the Democrats were going to gain the
White House with a radical left wing candidate pursuing
a radical left wing economic agenda. The overall drop in
annualized GDP for 2008 was only 0.8%. That includes
the 6.5% decline in the last three months of the year.
Same thing happened during Carter's first year in office.
The economy went to hell.
The recession began in Dec., 2007. The economy didn't grow during
2008. Your statement was a lie. And, you know that, since you are now
trying to say that it *only shrank by 0.8% during 2008*. Meaning, you
admit you were wrong. Why don't you just admit it, hater.
The economy did grow in 2008. You just can't read.
http://tinyurl.com/cp6gpl
Your cite doesn't support what you are saying. Why am I not
surprised?
Post by kujebak
Hate is the staple of a Marxist ideologue.
Yet, the only hate I see here is from the right wingers. Just read the
posts by MioMyo, or viper spit, or Stan. Or, for that matter, from
yourself. Nothing but hatred there.
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
You can't blame the Democrats for this, because it started on Bush's
watch.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How much longer is that going to matter?
When the economy starts to improve (and, it is beginning to show some
signs of doing so), you right-wingers will find something else to
bitch and moan about. That is a prediction. Hell, it is already
beginning. We have nutters like Carpathia/wild eyed in wonder calling
President Obama both a communist and a fascist. How silly is that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm afraid the improving economy is only a wishful fancy
on your part, and is likely to remain so, inasmuch as
Obama, and the party in power have not done nothing so
far to help the private sector. All of the TARP funds are
being spent to preserve the wealth of the already well-to-
do, and virtually none of the fiscal economic stimulus
spending is designed to encourage new investment, and
help create new private sector jobs, both of which are the
only requirements for real economic growth.

The conservatives are understandably concerned about the
direction the country is being taken by the new administra-
tion and its patry under the pretext of saving the economy.
Conservative objections to Obama's policies are based mostly
on issues, such as the continued infusion of taxpayer funds
into financial institutions despite the absence of any tangible
benefit to the U.S. economy. As far as political ad hominem
criticism, nothing has changed since Bush's presidency. It
still comes mostly from the left-wing media (Oberman, Schultz),
albeit this time for a different reason.
Dave Fritzinger
2009-04-09 00:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
Post by kujebak
Whether Bush had anything to do with the current
economic situation or not, the economy grew
in every one of his 8 years in the White House,
despite 9/11, and the market perturbations caused
by Alan Greenspan.
That is clearly a lie, since the current recession started in Dec.
2007. Also, if you look at job creation figures, they were far worse
under Bush II than under Clinton. Same thing with income growth.
Who's talking about Clinton you twit? Dec 2007 marks the
peak of the last market cycle. Significant economic contraction
did not begin until after the elections. What specifically is untrue
about my assertion that at 1/2 million new layoffs per month
one out of five private sector jobs (ie, jobs that create wealth)
will be gone by the end of the year. What specifically is Obama
doing to keep that from happening, other than the $30 more in
my pocket every two weeks? ;-)
You said the economy grew every year Bush was in office. I showed you
were wrong. Now you are trying to back away from your claim. Sorry,
but you were shown wrong. I threw in the stuff about Clinton to show
that the Bush "expansion" didn't help all that many people, except for
the rich. And, now you are trying to change the subject, because you
were caught in a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
But the point is that in 2008 the economy grew until it
became evident the Democrats were going to gain the
White House with a radical left wing candidate pursuing
a radical left wing economic agenda. The overall drop in
annualized GDP for 2008 was only 0.8%. That includes
the 6.5% decline in the last three months of the year.
Same thing happened during Carter's first year in office.
The economy went to hell.
The recession began in Dec., 2007. The economy didn't grow during
2008. Your statement was a lie. And, you know that, since you are now
trying to say that it *only shrank by 0.8% during 2008*. Meaning, you
admit you were wrong. Why don't you just admit it, hater.
The economy did grow in 2008. You just can't read.
http://tinyurl.com/cp6gpl
Your cite doesn't support what you are saying. Why am I not
surprised?
Post by kujebak
Hate is the staple of a Marxist ideologue.
Yet, the only hate I see here is from the right wingers. Just read the
posts by MioMyo, or viper spit, or Stan. Or, for that matter, from
yourself. Nothing but hatred there.
Post by kujebak
Post by Dave Fritzinger
You can't blame the Democrats for this, because it started on Bush's
watch.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
How much longer is that going to matter?
When the economy starts to improve (and, it is beginning to show some
signs of doing so), you right-wingers will find something else to
bitch and moan about. That is a prediction. Hell, it is already
beginning. We have nutters like Carpathia/wild eyed in wonder calling
President Obama both a communist and a fascist. How silly is that?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm afraid the improving economy is only a wishful fancy
on your part, and is likely to remain so, inasmuch as
Obama, and the party in power have not done nothing so
far to help the private sector. All of the TARP funds are
being spent to preserve the wealth of the already well-to-
do, and virtually none of the fiscal economic stimulus
spending is designed to encourage new investment, and
help create new private sector jobs, both of which are the
only requirements for real economic growth.
That is because they first have to stabilize the banks, so credit will
start flowing. Until that happens, nothing will help the economy.
Post by kujebak
The conservatives are understandably concerned about the
direction the country is being taken by the new administra-
tion and its patry under the pretext of saving the economy.
Conservative objections to Obama's policies are based mostly
on issues, such as the continued infusion of taxpayer funds
into financial institutions despite the absence of any tangible
benefit to the U.S. economy.
Which, of course, was started by the Bush administration...
Post by kujebak
As far as political ad hominem
criticism, nothing has changed since Bush's presidency. It
still comes mostly from the left-wing media (Oberman, Schultz),
albeit this time for a different reason.
You haven't been reading the nutters posting here, I see...
Spartakus
2009-04-07 16:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by who are you?
Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
You are PARTLY CORRECT, of course- correct in that should you come wanting
to kill me, I WANT YOU TO FAIL.
The same goes for bamby in that in his quest to trash the constitution and
forge his socialist, fascist utopia- YES HE SHOULD FAIL in that endeavor.
The most fun outcome of electing a black guy named Barack Hussein
Obama to the presidency is watching you wingnuts go so hilariously
crazy that you would go on television and the Internet and claim that
he's socialist and fascist and secretly Muslim, all at the same time.
Post by MioMyo
But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR
And he demonstrated his post-partisanship by appointing Republicans to
his cabinet, meeting face-to-face with Republican congressmen and
including Republicans like John McCain in major public events. Is it
his fault that Republicans decided to make obstructionism the
cornerstone of their legislative policy?
Post by MioMyo
He claimed to be post racial........ LIAR.....
Who beside folks like, for instance, MeowMeow, make his race an issue?
Post by MioMyo
And now he can't even stay in DC and get to work. He thinks his job is a non
stop campaign trashing America.............
Your Dear Leader, George Walker Bush, spent over one-third of his
tenure ON VACATION.
MioMyo
2009-04-08 02:38:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spartakus
Post by MioMyo
Post by who are you?
Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
You are PARTLY CORRECT, of course- correct in that should you come wanting
to kill me, I WANT YOU TO FAIL.
The same goes for bamby in that in his quest to trash the constitution and
forge his socialist, fascist utopia- YES HE SHOULD FAIL in that endeavor.
The most fun outcome of electing a black guy named Barack Hussein
Obama to the presidency is watching you wingnuts go so hilariously
crazy that you would go on television and the Internet and claim that
he's socialist and fascist and secretly Muslim, all at the same time.
Post by MioMyo
But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR
And he demonstrated his post-partisanship by appointing Republicans to
his cabinet, meeting face-to-face with Republican congressmen and
including Republicans like John McCain in major public events.
That's as lame as the Imperial Princess Pelosi's explanation that she is not
partisan because republicans are seated in congress even though she muzzles
any contribution they attempt to include.
Post by Spartakus
Is it
his fault that Republicans decided to make obstructionism the
cornerstone of their legislative policy?
Post by MioMyo
He claimed to be post racial........ LIAR.....
Who beside folks like, for instance, MeowMeow, make his race an issue?
You wouldn't notice & I'm not surprised.....
Post by Spartakus
Post by MioMyo
And now he can't even stay in DC and get to work. He thinks his job is a non
stop campaign trashing America.............
Your Dear Leader, George Walker Bush, spent over one-third of his
tenure ON VACATION.
Not true. He worked everywhere he went, plus he didn't take off to every
corner of the earth in his first 100-days. bamby on the other hand hasn't
spent hardly any time in Washington since Jan 20 and that's a fact.
Spartakus
2009-04-09 18:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by Spartakus
Post by MioMyo
But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR
And he demonstrated his post-partisanship by appointing Republicans
to his cabinet, meeting face-to-face with Republican congressmen and
including Republicans like John McCain in major public events.
That's as lame as the Imperial Princess Pelosi's explanation that she is
not partisan because republicans are seated in congress even though she
muzzles any contribution they attempt to include.
And that's about as lame as you claiming that you're pro-animal-rights
because you have mice and cockroaches living with you in your parents'
basement. Look, it's not President Obama's fault that Republicans
decided to make obstructionism the cornerstone of their legislative
policy. Nor is it his fault that the GOP selected a buffoon for their
party chairman. Nor is it his fault that people like you are throwing
Yosemite Sam-style tantrums and not making a goddam bit of sense.

You might stand a chance of getting some traction in our political
discourse by not lying to us and to each other. Just a thought.

MioMyo
2009-04-08 02:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by MioMyo
Post by who are you?
Post by MioMyo
bamby does, however, take first place though in being the MOST partisan
president in 4-decades. And he achieved that failure, CONTRARY to his
promise (IOW- he Lied) within his first 100-days......
The republican't want nothing but failure so why should they attach their
carriage to a winning horse. Their great god RU$H says "failure is good
for this country!" Failure appears to be the repubican't goal.
No question who to vote for in the NEXT election!
Who wants to be associated with the Republican't party of FAILURE?
You are PARTLY CORRECT, of course- correct in that should you come wanting
to kill me, I WANT YOU TO FAIL.
The same goes for bamby in that in his quest to trash the constitution and
forge his socialist, fascist utopia- YES HE SHOULD FAIL in that endeavor.
But all that is your little side-show in your futile attempt to dodge the
subject which is bamby is a phony and a liar. He claimed to be post
partisanship... LIAR
He claimed to be post racial........ LIAR.....
And now he can't even stay in DC and get to work. He thinks his job is a non
stop campaign trashing America.............
That's why you are PARTLY WRONG, of course- wrong in that bamby already is a
failure......
That's just a fact you will have to live with, libtard.............
< Get back in your little corner asswipe,

GFY, cause I will be here kicking liberal ass as I please. If you don't like
it, move to some fascist regime where only your ideological speech is
allowed.

<all that the repuglican party
<has left, no ideas, no power, and no appeal for the majority of
<America, just screaming and whining,
<while Obama fixes your messes.

Now that the tables have turned you can never defend your indefensible
fascist ideology nor the fact that you can't handle free speech other than
your own.

Enjoy my kicking you in the teeth on a regular basis tard.....
Loading...