40
   

Why I am not Voting Obama

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2012 07:00 pm
@snood,
Surely. Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:53 am
Damn, Hawkeye. You're not even going to show up and try to defend your blatant lie?

Wotta loser.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 09:54 am
On a brighter note, here's a depiction of job creation in the Obama era vs. the Bush era:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/311554_10151171144114155_635077763_n.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2012 10:42 am
@snood,
Even Romney is claiming that Obama is not doing good enough of a job to create jobs - because he doesn't mention how many jobs he's destroyed at
Bain Capital. He also claims he can create jobs, but never provides any detail on how he's going to accomplish it. He also talks about making the US energy self-sufficent, but looks what he's done recently.
Quote:
Mitt Romney Fans the Flames of Free Market Energy Policy | RedState


Anyone who wants the source just needs to type in "Mitt Romney Fans the Flames of Free Market Energy Policy" in any search engine to find it.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 05:36 pm
Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests. Thank you President Obama!

DONE! lets see conservatives come out swinging on this one, that would be hilarious!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/honoring-americas-veterans-act-obama_n_1748454.html

Quote:
President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.

"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Obama said before signing the bill, according to a pool report. "The graves of our veterans are hallowed grounds."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 09:05 pm
@snood,
Wasn't the "Bush era" 2000-2008? Pretty sure it wasn't just one year...
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 09:43 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Damn, Hawkeye. You're not even going to show up and try to defend your blatant lie?


Heeeeellllllooooooo!

You guys have turned hypocrisy into a cliche. Snood, you are describing yourself and you don't even cotton on to the fact that you are being stunningly hypocritical.

It's like it's genetic.

0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2012 09:49 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Wasn't the "Bush era" 2000-2008? Pretty sure it wasn't just one year...


WTF are you talking about McG?
Who is saying the Bush era was just one year?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 09:31 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Wasn't the "Bush era" 2000-2008? Pretty sure it wasn't just one year...


Yeah, well, when you lose about 6 million jobs from the economy in the last 8 months of your term, people tend to focus on that part. I'm sure you understand.

Cycloptichorn
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 09:38 am
@Cycloptichorn,
6 million American job losses or 1 million dead in Iraq, hmm, now which one will I focus on?.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:09 am
@eurocelticyankee,
Both, and don't forget Afghanistan.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:36 am
@eurocelticyankee,
To Cy, and way too many others, Iraq & Afghanistan were just two more little American booboos. A million or two killed, countless lives ruined - no big deal. He has to worry about more important things.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:45 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Wasn't the "Bush era" 2000-2008? Pretty sure it wasn't just one year...


Yeah, well, when you lose about 6 million jobs from the economy in the last 8 months of your term, people tend to focus on that part. I'm sure you understand.

Cycloptichorn


Looks like Obama lost about the same amount in his first 8 months... probably not worth talking about though so long as you can derp Bush, right?

So long as your candidate is shown with the glowy halo over his head. No sense in being even slightly objective about anything. I understand.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:46 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Wasn't the "Bush era" 2000-2008? Pretty sure it wasn't just one year...


WTF are you talking about McG?
Who is saying the Bush era was just one year?


Ummm. you? You compare the Bush era to the Obama era, yet only show a single year. Surely Bush had some job growth of the 8 years he was president.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 11:49 am
@McGentrix,
The reason Bush had some "job growth" is based on the housing boom that eventually turned into a housing bust and the Great Recession.

That impacted the whole world's economies.

Get your head out of your arse.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:19 pm
http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/01/TradingEconomicsChart063.png
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:24 pm
@snood,
McG is right, Snood. And the sad thing is that you, and everyone, know it.

Either you did a piss poor job of researching, or you knew things were different and you chose to only show that limited period of time.

Neither really does justice to your sense of "honesty".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 12:25 pm
@revelette,
Your graph shows it very well; job growth from 2004 to 2007 was a faux growth based on the faux housing boom.

People borrowed money on their home equities to keep up consumer spending, but that also exacerbated the housing bust when the values of homes tanked to new lows.

Not many people have their home equities to borrow money to spend on consumer goods and services. That's one of the reasons why any recovery from the Great Recession will be long and painful for many families.

Another reason being that most middle class incomes and benefits have remained stagnant for some twenty years now.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2012 01:00 pm
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/532452_3369687964024_1477704514_n.jpg
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 01:14 pm
@panzade,
The NYT is perpetuating the myth that Obama will be blamed for the low jobs rates without understanding basic economics. The unemployment rate in the US looks pretty good compared to the rest of the world - including most of the Euro countries.

What that means in Econ 101 terms is that world demand for goods and service are depressed. No economy can grow when everybody else is suffering from low employment; the demand just isn't there.

Romney claims he can grow jobs, but he never bothers to explain how. That's because even China's economy is stagnant; their inventory is growing because world demand is down even for their low labor cost products.

The NYT article saying that Obama will be blamed just proves how ignorant they are about economics.

Instead, they should be explaining why unemployment is high and struggling - all over the world.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 09:42:47