"Wow!" Is all I can say.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

Maybe it is not life that they are angry about, but the direction that the county is going - downhill, rapidly.

[Guest]

Maybe it is not life that they are angry about, but the direction that the county is going - downhill, rapidly.

Yes, you've nailed it.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

I think you are smart to just leave.

There is the opportunity for political discussion on here.

It is what you make of it.

IF you have a ideology and your mind is closed to any other then please leave.

Most people come in here with a chip on their shoulder but once they are able to determine those who really wish to discuss issues and ignore the trolls that, you are right about, do frequent here, it can be fun AND educational.

My thing is to read the posts....those that are not just a personal attack on some poor politician....and then investigate to see how true everything is...to determine if I misread the issue. Many time I have misread and once I do my investigation I am ok.

BUT you should leave...you are either sincere and thus I suggest leaving and not coming back since you do not have to be here...

OR...you are a troll which is what I suspect who is simply using another little gimmick to blast away at others. If that is the case...PLEASE PLEASE leave.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

No one is stopping you from commenting on the subject, or otherwise. But, if you feel that way,........bye. :wave:

[Guest]

Evidently personal attacks, derogatory remarks, name calling, incessant scoldings, and ponderous rants aren't the OP's cup of tea. Go figure.

[Guest]

Maybe it is not life that they are angry about, but the direction that the county is going - downhill, rapidly.







Anyone who truly believes things are not better now than they were in 2009 really needs help tying their own shoelaces.

[Guest]

I will remind the OP and others as I usually do when the political forum is attacked in general for the unacceptable actions of a very few specific antagonizers.

With the advent of the anonymous anonymous guest screen name for all there is opportunity for many of the antagonizers to place multiple posts creating an unreal rerality to the forum. And may very well include something like the OP here in this thread.

So please do not tar and feather the entirety of the political forum for the antics of the few.

If you are REALLY interested you should be capable enough to ignore the few and participate as you claim you came here to do.

[Guest]

Anyone who truly believes things are not better now than they were in 2009 really needs help tying their own shoelaces.
I remember my father talking about the "good old days" even though it was the Depression years. Some people here feel the same about 43's time in office.

[Guest]

I remember my father talking about the "good old days" even though it was the Depression years. Some people here feel the same about 43's time in office.

I am sure you are correct in your assumption.

While I understand your sarcasm and since you know your name appears when you post, I also know you as an ardent and loyal supporter of President Obama.

I do get the malaise of the Iraq war and do not wish to debate that thing again on here but do you actually think this country is in better shape now than in 2009 ? I always found you to be a smart poster, albeit a very biased one, but how could you even suggest such a thing ?

His two "legacy" moments...ACA and Iran deal are disasters.

ACA has a lot of good stuff in it and a lot that BOTH parties wanted but it is structured to bring our economy to its knees and does nothing to do what is was supposed to do. Reduce health care costs.

Iran, with a huge approval rating of about 23 % (and that approval thingie means not much except for how low it is) is discussed as if there was no context attached to it, ie. N. Korea, Syria, Russia, ICBM's and on and especially (for me anyway) that stupid premise about the only option to it being war.

Those are the two things he had accomplished that are headline worth....race relations went straight to the toilet beginning with his first foray with the black professor way back.....our economic situation while it DID improve is not good and we have yet to feel the full impact of ACA....foreign policy you have to admit is a total disaster; we are single handly making the ME a nuke haven and while not literally true, we have left Israel out to dry; Russia is dictating everything we do and getting stronger each day; we ignore, and frankly I never hear of this country doing this....we ignore the gassing of children in Syria.

No, we are not better off than we were and I was just getting started.

We need a change and it better go 180 degrees from our current direction.

NOBODY blames Obama alone. It was a "team" effort. BUT those items that lay at the Presidents feet, especially foreign policy is a mess. And the racial divide I think a case can be made that he has taken us back in time, whether he did it on purpose or not, it is just a fact.

WE are a country of laws...this President wants HIS OWN LAW. I think that fact is what bothers me about this President more than any other. He feels he is always right, and that alone is not a bad thing, but he will not even tolerate discussion with anyone who disagrees with him EVER AND AT ALL.

I suppose that last fact is what makes Trump more attractive to moderates. Same kind of schtick but on the right :)

[Guest]

Anyone who truly believes things are not better now than they were in 2009 really needs help tying their own shoelaces.

Seriously???

Then working >100 hours a week but not being paid for the OT.
Now RETIRED

Then making 6 figures
Now making 6 figures

Then 2 houses with mortgages
Now 2 houses without a mortgage

Then traveling every week M-F
Now only when I want to

So I think I might be better off than I was in 2009....but you must have forgotten about the crash of 2008! Surely you must remember that!

But I forgot I had a nephew being deployed to the gulf on a routing basis now been home for 6 years.

[Guest]

I also forgot to say I do know how to tie my shoe laces.

[Guest]

Anyone who truly believes things are not better now than they were in 2009 really needs help tying their own shoelaces.

Tell that to the millions that he's added to the welfare roles. Oh wait, they wear slip-on shoes - no shoe laces for them.

[Guest]

Seriously???

Then working >100 hours a week but not being paid for the OT.
Now RETIRED

Then making 6 figures
Now making 6 figures

Then 2 houses with mortgages
Now 2 houses without a mortgage

Then traveling every week M-F
Now only when I want to

So I think I might be better off than I was in 2009....but you must have forgotten about the crash of 2008! Surely you must remember that!

But I forgot I had a nephew being deployed to the gulf on a routing basis now been home for 6 years.

Good for you.

BUT are you honestly and sincerely making YOURSELF the criteria, the standard by which all is measured ?

Your post was a bit self centered don't you think ?

[Guest]

Let me see....now what was the subject of this thread,

Where does when one had it better or not fit in the thread?

Right! It doesn't.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

Dear guest: I would rather that you offered your opinion on a political matter than on your opinion concerning political talk posters because we have one too many of the latter.

Beside which the fact remains that most progressive honestly believe name calling is their argument. To wit "What do you say to Obama's foreign policy toward an Iranian Nuclear Agreement being ill conceived"? Response "You are a racist"

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Good for you.

BUT are you honestly and sincerely making YOURSELF the criteria, the standard by which all is measured ?

Your post was a bit self centered don't you think ?

I think that OP said that anyone who thinks they are better off can't tie their shoelaces.....

I for one am better off so it is not self centered in the least. Just the truth.

But I did get a good laugh.....

[Guest]

I think that OP said that anyone who thinks they are better off can't tie their shoelaces.....

I for one am better off so it is not self centered in the least. Just the truth.

But I did get a good laugh.....

Good for you.

I guess those who did not fare as you since 2009 will just have to wait their turn.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.
This forum is as you say. It is 95% emotion and 5% facts. The anonymous feature makes it like the etchings you'll find in the men's restroom at an inner city Burger King most of the time. That said there are some very well thought out and intellectual posts. Now if you are looking to get back into Iraq and Afganistan and invade Russia and China at the same you'll get a great deal of support. Don't take it to serious.

[Guest]

I am sure you are correct in your assumption.

While I understand your sarcasm and since you know your name appears when you post, I also know you as an ardent and loyal supporter of President Obama.

I do get the malaise of the Iraq war and do not wish to debate that thing again on here but do you actually think this country is in better shape now than in 2009 ? I always found you to be a smart poster, albeit a very biased one, but how could you even suggest such a thing ?

His two "legacy" moments...ACA and Iran deal are disasters.

ACA has a lot of good stuff in it and a lot that BOTH parties wanted but it is structured to bring our economy to its knees and does nothing to do what is was supposed to do. Reduce health care costs.

Iran, with a huge approval rating of about 23 % (and that approval thingie means not much except for how low it is) is discussed as if there was no context attached to it, ie. N. Korea, Syria, Russia, ICBM's and on and especially (for me anyway) that stupid premise about the only option to it being war.

Those are the two things he had accomplished that are headline worth....race relations went straight to the toilet beginning with his first foray with the black professor way back.....our economic situation while it DID improve is not good and we have yet to feel the full impact of ACA....foreign policy you have to admit is a total disaster; we are single handly making the ME a nuke haven and while not literally true, we have left Israel out to dry; Russia is dictating everything we do and getting stronger each day; we ignore, and frankly I never hear of this country doing this....we ignore the gassing of children in Syria.

No, we are not better off than we were and I was just getting started.

We need a change and it better go 180 degrees from our current direction.

NOBODY blames Obama alone. It was a "team" effort. BUT those items that lay at the Presidents feet, especially foreign policy is a mess. And the racial divide I think a case can be made that he has taken us back in time, whether he did it on purpose or not, it is just a fact.

WE are a country of laws...this President wants HIS OWN LAW. I think that fact is what bothers me about this President more than any other. He feels he is always right, and that alone is not a bad thing, but he will not even tolerate discussion with anyone who disagrees with him EVER AND AT ALL.

I suppose that last fact is what makes Trump more attractive to moderates. Same kind of schtick but on the right :)

The trouble is that Trump is more moderate than conservative in some respects. He will want some form of TRUMPCARE probably. It will be interesting to see what his followers who voted for him think what kind of things he puts into effect if he becomes POTUS. A huge wall which will create a police state, a large military to combat troubles from abroad due to putting up this HUGE wall, and myriad problems with paying for the wall and the military. Our blood, sweat, and tears; Trump's Glory. The man who would be king if he could have it that way. The trouble is, he has Congress to deal with as well and the US Supreme Court. Not to mention the US Constitution's whose writers really frowned on someone with a royal prerogative.

And I never said Hillary Clinton is honest. But, she seems to have some respect for the US Constitution. Trump is a egomaniac who is used to getting his own way and will shred the Constitution if he can. He has followed no rules so far in the election, why would he stop breaking them when and if he becomes POTUS?

[Guest]

The trouble is that Trump is more moderate than conservative in some respects. He will want some form of TRUMPCARE probably. It will be interesting to see what his followers who voted for him think what kind of things he puts into effect if he becomes POTUS. A huge wall which will create a police state, a large military to combat troubles from abroad due to putting up this HUGE wall, and myriad problems with paying for the wall and the military. Our blood, sweat, and tears; Trump's Glory. The man who would be king if he could have it that way. The trouble is, he has Congress to deal with as well and the US Supreme Court. Not to mention the US Constitution's whose writers really frowned on someone with a royal prerogative.

And I never said Hillary Clinton is honest. But, she seems to have some respect for the US Constitution. Trump is a egomaniac who is used to getting his own way and will shred the Constitution if he can. He has followed no rules so far in the election, why would he stop breaking them when and if he becomes POTUS?

Impossible. By the time he would be sworn in, IF he is elected, Obama would have not only shredded the constitution, but also burned it. He even said that the constitution means nothing and that it is only a guide. Trump could not do any worst than Obama, so the bar is already pretty low.

[Guest]

Unless you have a very thick skin especially if you are a Democrat or Independent, you should stay away. I haven't been here that long, since July. My first post, I was called at least four names by different people, and it has gone down from there.

The easiest way to end a conversation here, is to ask another posted to back up his comments with facts. The person that just mentioned 5% facts is right on target there.

Take a good look at the post on the Iran agreement. It is a total failure! It hasn't even taken affect yet. Almost everyone of the people opposed to the deal given the unmistakable impression that we were the only one in the agreement with Iran. Colin Powell's interview on the Meet The Press has been brought up several times. The Republicans dismiss it, and won't even look at it. That is what passes for being open minded here.

Someone mentioned that we need a 180 turn from where we are. That means that both parties have to do an about face. Who thinks that that will ever happen? The Republican that ran John McCain's run for Presidency stated, "the reason that people don't think anything in Washington will get done, and are looking at the outsiders is the 40 to 60 times the Republicans have tried to repeal and replace Obamacare. Somewhere along the line they would get it through their thick skulls that it is not going to happen.

[Guest]

The trouble is that Trump is more moderate than conservative in some respects. He will want some form of TRUMPCARE probably. It will be interesting to see what his followers who voted for him think what kind of things he puts into effect if he becomes POTUS. A huge wall which will create a police state, a large military to combat troubles from abroad due to putting up this HUGE wall, and myriad problems with paying for the wall and the military. Our blood, sweat, and tears; Trump's Glory. The man who would be king if he could have it that way. The trouble is, he has Congress to deal with as well and the US Supreme Court. Not to mention the US Constitution's whose writers really frowned on someone with a royal prerogative.

And I never said Hillary Clinton is honest. But, she seems to have some respect for the US Constitution. Trump is a egomaniac who is used to getting his own way and will shred the Constitution if he can. He has followed no rules so far in the election, why would he stop breaking them when and if he becomes POTUS?

Trump is going to shred the Constitution. He doesn't even have a clue of where to look for it. To change Jendal (sp) comment, "Trump doesn't think the Constitution exists, because he is not in it."

[Guest]

Unless you have a very thick skin especially if you are a Democrat or Independent, you should stay away. I haven't been here that long, since July. My first post, I was called at least four names by different people, and it has gone down from there.

The easiest way to end a conversation here, is to ask another posted to back up his comments with facts. The person that just mentioned 5% facts is right on target there.

Take a good look at the post on the Iran agreement. It is a total failure! It hasn't even taken affect yet. Almost everyone of the people opposed to the deal given the unmistakable impression that we were the only one in the agreement with Iran. Colin Powell's interview on the Meet The Press has been brought up several times. The Republicans dismiss it, and won't even look at it. That is what passes for being open minded here.

Someone mentioned that we need a 180 turn from where we are. That means that both parties have to do an about face. Who thinks that that will ever happen? The Republican that ran John McCain's run for Presidency stated, "the reason that people don't think anything in Washington will get done, and are looking at the outsiders is the 40 to 60 times the Republicans have tried to repeal and replace Obamacare. Somewhere along the line they would get it through their thick skulls that it is not going to happen.

This is an OPINION forum thus you get....dah dah...OPINIONS.

I do agree with you on asking for backup, and have asked YOU a few times. Once you then called me a racist so I stopped and actually have tried to ignore your posts for the very reason you give in your advice.

YOU NEVER BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH LINKS. You just type on as if we should accept what you say.

For example when John McCain ran WHICH WAS SIX YEARS AGO, PLEASE supply the link to that quote that you referenced with no link.

Wondering if you ever read your own posts. You alway begin with saying how it is both parties fault, but cannot recall you ever once criticizing the Democratic party...have you ever ?

Only person to my knowledge that ever brought up Colin Powell was YOU and people who responded to YOU !

And lastly, there is not one poster who does not know that there were other countries involved so why would you say such a thing. I even responded to you about what happens if they cheat and the other countries involved have now started trade...do you remember my question to you about what they might do after selling all the missles to Iran

You just make things up and then come on here and advise facts

I am not sure but do not think you have ever one time supplied a link for your ramblings.

[Guest]

Good for you.

I guess those who did not fare as you since 2009 will just have to wait their turn.

Not really..... I worked hard, put 25% of my salary into a 401K up to and including maxing out the catchup. I worked for less money at a company that offered a pension. I moved into a state with no state income tax and an a low cost of living.

With all my saving and selling the big house I have a nice little nugget to live on with my pension and SS.

Its all in the planning....

[Guest]

Good for you.

I guess those who did not fare as you since 2009 will just have to wait their turn.

Not to worry, Bernie Sanders will take care of them - with other peoples money of course.

[Guest]

Not to worry, Bernie Sanders will take care of them - with other peoples money of course.

Yes, we can all definitely plan on seeing The Greatest Depression should we be stupid enough to elect Bernie. Nice guy ... but clueless on economics.

[Guest]

Democrats have it all under control. Their version of economics is to take as much from the wealthy as they can get away with and after they take care of themselves, the rest will go to the lazy. The middle class can take care of itself as long as it doesn't advance to the wealthy stage. Wealthy is determined by if you have earned enough to live a bit better than those at the poverty level, that receive their livelihood from the gov. If you advance to a level superior to those that live on the gov dole then you are deemed wealthy and must be taxed into submission.

[Guest]

This is an OPINION forum thus you get....dah dah...OPINIONS.

I do agree with you on asking for backup, and have asked YOU a few times. Once you then called me a racist so I stopped and actually have tried to ignore your posts for the very reason you give in your advice.

YOU NEVER BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY WITH LINKS. You just type on as if we should accept what you say.

For example when John McCain ran WHICH WAS SIX YEARS AGO, PLEASE supply the link to that quote that you referenced with no link.

Wondering if you ever read your own posts. You alway begin with saying how it is both parties fault, but cannot recall you ever once criticizing the Democratic party...have you ever ?

Only person to my knowledge that ever brought up Colin Powell was YOU and people who responded to YOU !

And lastly, there is not one poster who does not know that there were other countries involved so why would you say such a thing. I even responded to you about what happens if they cheat and the other countries involved have now started trade...do you remember my question to you about what they might do after selling all the missles to Iran

You just make things up and then come on here and advise facts

I am not sure but do not think you have ever one time supplied a link for your ramblings.

You are the person that does everything that you are accusing me of, and then some. That is a little more than ironic. You had better take a good look at my posts, because it appears that you have a very selective memory. If I goggle something, I cut, and paste the article here. The comment made by McCain's man, it was made on Morning Joe on MSNBC this week. You know the station you never watch.

You are damn right I brought Colin Powell. You would think that an open minded person, which some here profess to be, would be interested in what a former REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE had to say about the Iranian agreement especially one that a lot to do with what is going on in the middle east now. I couldn't have been any more wrong. What turned Colin Powell into the devil? If you think that it didn't have anything to do with race, answer the question?

I am going to answer a question with a question. You tell me one thing that you have said that doesn't criticize the Democratic party, and in particular Obama. On this board, how could I possibly add anything to the mountain of total nonsense that has been directed at the Democratic party by the all knowing, all seeing people that post here?

As far as the Iran deal is concerned, all you ever hear from Republicans is "if this", "if that", "when they get a nuclear bomb", "when they cheat". " we are selling Israel out". Who the hell wants to answer a never ending bunch of hypotheticals from people, who have never seen the deal? These same people are getting their information from the Republicans in Congress, who were against it without even seeing the deal. The only station that they watch is Fox News, which is the Republican Broadcasting System.

Why would say that people here don't know that other countries were involved in the Iran agreement? Are you kidding me? Maybe because you have dismissed every other country, and the UN in this deal as having other alternative motives other than stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, which was the reason for the sanctions, and the talks.

[Guest]

Anyone that thinks that this deal was to keep Iran from getting nukes, must not be paying attention. Or stupid, or ignorant, or just plain oblivious. This deal was to allow Iran to have their frozen money back, so that they could do business with France, Russia, etc. European countries are greedy and want Iran's business. The other Middle Eastern countries are quaking in their booties over this deal. It's a stupid deal. Iran can deem any site as military and we can't inspect. The sights that we do want to inspect, have to be given 24 days notice. Kind of like telling Iraq that we were getting ready to invade so get your WMDs out of the country.

Tell me that none of you think that we got anything out of this deal?

[Guest]

Anyone who truly believes things are not better now than they were in 2009 really needs help tying their own shoelaces.

But they ARE better! Like it or not, by every measure of the economy, the USA is better off now than when Obama first took office. Obama rescued the Republican run USA banks and the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. Home-buyer interest rates are the lowest in decades which also spurs corporate growth. It's just a plain fact that Obama inherited the Great George Bush Recession, and, despite 24/7 obstruction from the Republicans, he forund a way to fix it. Since Obama became president, corporate debt has been reduced to 1990 levels. Thanks to the Obama policies and leadership, General Motors CO. has recovered . Obama's $49.5 billion 'purchase' of 61% of the company saved thousands of jobs and businesses throughout most of 50 states, not just the midwest. Consumers like me and you, are buying again and homebuilding is increasing. Unemployment has declined and the econonmy has expanded. Manufacturing jobs rose. Obama Care? After doubling for the past 20 years under the Bush's, medical expenses rose only 2% in the last 3 years, the LEAST in 65 years. George W Bush's presidency saw the Sept 11 terrorist attacks and ended with the deepest recession in 60 years which triggered the ongoing global financial crisis. After 12 years with a Republican President, the entire world economy collapsed. Over 60,000 factories closed under the Bush's and 9 million jobs were lost. The Republicans have the money, and they spend it on a propaganda machine which is a model for any dictator any where in the world, communist, fascist, or capitalist. These are all facts that be checked at Factcheck.org or Scicheck.org. It wasn't an email I received or learned on FOX or CNN.

[Guest]

But they ARE better! Like it or not, by every measure of the economy, the USA is better off now than when Obama first took office. Obama rescued the Republican run USA banks and the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. Home-buyer interest rates are the lowest in decades which also spurs corporate growth. It's just a plain fact that Obama inherited the Great George Bush Recession, and, despite 24/7 obstruction from the Republicans, he forund a way to fix it. Since Obama became president, corporate debt has been reduced to 1990 levels. Thanks to the Obama policies and leadership, General Motors CO. has recovered . Obama's $49.5 billion 'purchase' of 61% of the company saved thousands of jobs and businesses throughout most of 50 states, not just the midwest. Consumers like me and you, are buying again and homebuilding is increasing. Unemployment has declined and the econonmy has expanded. Manufacturing jobs rose. Obama Care? After doubling for the past 20 years under the Bush's, medical expenses rose only 2% in the last 3 years, the LEAST in 65 years. George W Bush's presidency saw the Sept 11 terrorist attacks and ended with the deepest recession in 60 years which triggered the ongoing global financial crisis. After 12 years with a Republican President, the entire world economy collapsed. Over 60,000 factories closed under the Bush's and 9 million jobs were lost. The Republicans have the money, and they spend it on a propaganda machine which is a model for any dictator any where in the world, communist, fascist, or capitalist. These are all facts that be checked at Factcheck.org or Scicheck.org. It wasn't an email I received or learned on FOX or CNN.


Reads quite like a fantasy novel. You have a very interesting imagination. If not for so many false statements, it would almost be a bit believable. Sorry, but if all liberals believe your post, then we have a lot of imbeciles in our country.

[Guest]

But they ARE better! Like it or not, by every measure of the economy, the USA is better off now than when Obama first took office. Obama rescued the Republican run USA banks and the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. Home-buyer interest rates are the lowest in decades which also spurs corporate growth. It's just a plain fact that Obama inherited the Great George Bush Recession, and, despite 24/7 obstruction from the Republicans, he forund a way to fix it. Since Obama became president, corporate debt has been reduced to 1990 levels. Thanks to the Obama policies and leadership, General Motors CO. has recovered . Obama's $49.5 billion 'purchase' of 61% of the company saved thousands of jobs and businesses throughout most of 50 states, not just the midwest. Consumers like me and you, are buying again and homebuilding is increasing. Unemployment has declined and the econonmy has expanded. Manufacturing jobs rose. Obama Care? After doubling for the past 20 years under the Bush's, medical expenses rose only 2% in the last 3 years, the LEAST in 65 years. George W Bush's presidency saw the Sept 11 terrorist attacks and ended with the deepest recession in 60 years which triggered the ongoing global financial crisis. After 12 years with a Republican President, the entire world economy collapsed. Over 60,000 factories closed under the Bush's and 9 million jobs were lost. The Republicans have the money, and they spend it on a propaganda machine which is a model for any dictator any where in the world, communist, fascist, or capitalist. These are all facts that be checked at Factcheck.org or Scicheck.org. It wasn't an email I received or learned on FOX or CNN.

1. I need some creditible links and back ups to your statement..."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. " FACTS please on how he did this. Links to prove your accusations.

2. Since you blame all the bank problems in one way with ABSOLUTELY no facts except what you typed. Do you think the Community Reinvestment Act might have helped just a tad ? FACTS and LINKS with accusations please !

3.Have you investigated and read the CBO analysis on Obama Care ? Do you know the affect this bill has had/will have on our national budget for years ? FACTS PLEASE. Links to prove your accusations.

Once you prove with links and facts on your accusations, I will continue

[Guest]

I am sure you are correct in your assumption.

While I understand your sarcasm and since you know your name appears when you post, I also know you as an ardent and loyal supporter of President Obama.

I do get the malaise of the Iraq war and do not wish to debate that thing again on here but do you actually think this country is in better shape now than in 2009 ? I always found you to be a smart poster, albeit a very biased one, but how could you even suggest such a thing ?

His two "legacy" moments...ACA and Iran deal are disasters.

ACA has a lot of good stuff in it and a lot that BOTH parties wanted but it is structured to bring our economy to its knees and does nothing to do what is was supposed to do. Reduce health care costs.

Iran, with a huge approval rating of about 23 % (and that approval thingie means not much except for how low it is) is discussed as if there was no context attached to it, ie. N. Korea, Syria, Russia, ICBM's and on and especially (for me anyway) that stupid premise about the only option to it being war.

Those are the two things he had accomplished that are headline worth....race relations went straight to the toilet beginning with his first foray with the black professor way back.....our economic situation while it DID improve is not good and we have yet to feel the full impact of ACA....foreign policy you have to admit is a total disaster; we are single handly making the ME a nuke haven and while not literally true, we have left Israel out to dry; Russia is dictating everything we do and getting stronger each day; we ignore, and frankly I never hear of this country doing this....we ignore the gassing of children in Syria.

No, we are not better off than we were and I was just getting started.

We need a change and it better go 180 degrees from our current direction.

NOBODY blames Obama alone. It was a "team" effort. BUT those items that lay at the Presidents feet, especially foreign policy is a mess. And the racial divide I think a case can be made that he has taken us back in time, whether he did it on purpose or not, it is just a fact.

WE are a country of laws...this President wants HIS OWN LAW. I think that fact is what bothers me about this President more than any other. He feels he is always right, and that alone is not a bad thing, but he will not even tolerate discussion with anyone who disagrees with him EVER AND AT ALL.

I suppose that last fact is what makes Trump more attractive to moderates. Same kind of schtick but on the right :)

An interesting and respectful post. Thanks. I'm not exactly an ardent Obama supporter. In fact I entertained voting for Mitt Romney, the original Mitt Romney before he became the "severely conservative" one that was so unconvincing. The 2008 election was a no brainer; the Republican ticket was in Trump's words terrible. However, I have voted Republican before for President, governor, and senator.

Having said that, I sincerely believe we are better off now under Obama than Bush 43. He inherited a mess of two wars and borderline economic collapse and got us through. I understand there are problems in the world, but under whose Presidency weren't there any? The history of the world in the last 100 years can read like a horror story.

[Guest]

An interesting and respectful post. Thanks. I'm not exactly an ardent Obama supporter. In fact I entertained voting for Mitt Romney, the original Mitt Romney before he became the "severely conservative" one that was so unconvincing. The 2008 election was a no brainer; the Republican ticket was in Trump's words terrible. However, I have voted Republican before for President, governor, and senator.

Having said that, I sincerely believe we are better off now under Obama than Bush 43. He inherited a mess of two wars and borderline economic collapse and got us through. I understand there are problems in the world, but under whose Presidency weren't there any? The history of the world in the last 100 years can read like a horror story.

Ha, ha, ha.....that was meant to be satiric, right?

[Guest]

An interesting and respectful post. Thanks. I'm not exactly an ardent Obama supporter. In fact I entertained voting for Mitt Romney, the original Mitt Romney before he became the "severely conservative" one that was so unconvincing. The 2008 election was a no brainer; the Republican ticket was in Trump's words terrible. However, I have voted Republican before for President, governor, and senator.

Having said that, I sincerely believe we are better off now under Obama than Bush 43. He inherited a mess of two wars and borderline economic collapse and got us through. I understand there are problems in the world, but under whose Presidency weren't there any? The history of the world in the last 100 years can read like a horror story.

"Got us through"? How, by walking away from the war in Iraq and leaving a void for ISIS and Iran? Improving the economy by more government regulation? The Fed, and the Fed alone, is responsible for the meager, slow-paced recovery that were are currently experiencing.

As you know, the FOMC met yesterday and today and the Fed Funds Rate remains unchanged. Not a positive sign of a healthy ecomony. The Food Stamp recipient rate is up and the labor participation rate is down under Obama. Yeah, what a great "president" he's has been for the economy.

[Guest]

But they ARE better! Like it or not, by every measure of the economy, the USA is better off now than when Obama first took office. Obama rescued the Republican run USA banks and the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. Home-buyer interest rates are the lowest in decades which also spurs corporate growth. It's just a plain fact that Obama inherited the Great George Bush Recession, and, despite 24/7 obstruction from the Republicans, he forund a way to fix it. Since Obama became president, corporate debt has been reduced to 1990 levels. Thanks to the Obama policies and leadership, General Motors CO. has recovered . Obama's $49.5 billion 'purchase' of 61% of the company saved thousands of jobs and businesses throughout most of 50 states, not just the midwest. Consumers like me and you, are buying again and homebuilding is increasing. Unemployment has declined and the econonmy has expanded. Manufacturing jobs rose. Obama Care? After doubling for the past 20 years under the Bush's, medical expenses rose only 2% in the last 3 years, the LEAST in 65 years. George W Bush's presidency saw the Sept 11 terrorist attacks and ended with the deepest recession in 60 years which triggered the ongoing global financial crisis. After 12 years with a Republican President, the entire world economy collapsed. Over 60,000 factories closed under the Bush's and 9 million jobs were lost. The Republicans have the money, and they spend it on a propaganda machine which is a model for any dictator any where in the world, communist, fascist, or capitalist. These are all facts that be checked at Factcheck.org or Scicheck.org. It wasn't an email I received or learned on FOX or CNN.

Total BS!

Here's some examples that tell a different story:

My insurance premium went up 43% since 2009. I doubt my story is isolated.

Home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years. = FactCheck.org

Long term unemployed 86,000 more than when Obama entered office = Factcheck.org

Debt held by public 106%

Food stamps up 70% under Obama = Washington Times [45% higher than when Obama was sworn in = Factcheck.org] Either number is too much.

More blacks unemployed since Obama
More black babies aborted last year than born

More of population at poverty level since Obama

EGP so low its stagnant.

National debt will be double what it was when Obama was sworn in by the time he leaves office. It took 40 presidents to accumulate as much debt as Obama has in two terms. By the way, we haven't paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.

[Guest]

Total BS!

Here's some examples that tell a different story:

My insurance premium went up 43% since 2009. I doubt my story is isolated.

Home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years. = FactCheck.org

Long term unemployed 86,000 more than when Obama entered office = Factcheck.org

Debt held by public 106%

Food stamps up 70% under Obama = Washington Times [45% higher than when Obama was sworn in = Factcheck.org] Either number is too much.

More blacks unemployed since Obama
More black babies aborted last year than born

More of population at poverty level since Obama

EGP so low its stagnant.

National debt will be double what it was when Obama was sworn in by the time he leaves office. It took 40 presidents to accumulate as much debt as Obama has in two terms. By the way, we haven't paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.


You want to talk about total BS. Take a good look at your post. Your looking at the end results of the Great Recession, and placing all the blame on Obama. So, so what did Obama do prior to his presidency that caused the Great Recession, and the Iraq war? The ACA definitely falls in his lap.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

You start running the clock on his contribution to the debt at 9/30/09, there is no way that it will double. That includes handing him programs like food stamps, whose increase was a direct result of the Great Recession. Drop in home ownership direct result of the Great Recession. Increasing unemployment benefits to 99 weeks a direct result of the Great Recession.

Try honestly looking at the causes of the debt increase, and place the blame, if you have too, where it belongs.

[Guest]

You want to talk about total BS. Take a good look at your post. Your looking at the end results of the Great Recession, and placing all the blame on Obama. So, so what did Obama do prior to his presidency that caused the Great Recession, and the Iraq war? The ACA definitely falls in his lap.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

You start running the clock on his contribution to the debt at 9/30/09, there is no way that it will double. That includes handing him programs like food stamps, whose increase was a direct result of the Great Recession. Drop in home ownership direct result of the Great Recession. Increasing unemployment benefits to 99 weeks a direct result of the Great Recession.

Try honestly looking at the causes of the debt increase, and place the blame, if you have too, where it belongs.

You like Obama and most democrats don't seem to understand when one runs for presient and wins they own everything on day one.

This is not kindergarten where one gets a chance or excuse to blame someone else.

Whether you or Obama or anybody else is looking to blame somebody else, that is not the way executive sucession works.

If you inherit something that is not right or is broken or needs fixing....DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Obama and others like him are amateurs who have no clue regarding responsibility, delegating, managing, measuring, comitting or following up.
In short....was not qualified for the job and it is showing every day for the past 6++ years. In corporate America he would have been gone by the end of year one!!!!!

[Guest]

You want to talk about total BS. Take a good look at your post. Your looking at the end results of the Great Recession, and placing all the blame on Obama. So, so what did Obama do prior to his presidency that caused the Great Recession, and the Iraq war? The ACA definitely falls in his lap.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

You start running the clock on his contribution to the debt at 9/30/09, there is no way that it will double. That includes handing him programs like food stamps, whose increase was a direct result of the Great Recession. Drop in home ownership direct result of the Great Recession. Increasing unemployment benefits to 99 weeks a direct result of the Great Recession.

Try honestly looking at the causes of the debt increase, and place the blame, if you have too, where it belongs.

National Debt 12/31/2008 = $10,699,804,864,612.13

National Debt 9/15/2015 = $18,151,049,785,935.02

TreasuryDirert.gov

You can do the math, I think.

The Great Recession was only that because Obama made it last as long as he could. Any other president in history could have/did better at the economy than this incompetent. He wasn't given anything. He ran with Hope and Change. IT's all his and he owns it. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he had plans to hose it up. He hates America and anyone can see it that isn't blind. How many recessions or depressions have we had? How long did it take for us to rebound? Nope, blame it on Bush all you want, but it's Bush that everyone would rather have in there right now than Obama. Check out the polls.

[Guest]

You like Obama and most democrats don't seem to understand when one runs for presient and wins they own everything on day one.

This is not kindergarten where one gets a chance or excuse to blame someone else.

Whether you or Obama or anybody else is looking to blame somebody else, that is not the way executive sucession works.

If you inherit something that is not right or is broken or needs fixing....DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Obama and others like him are amateurs who have no clue regarding responsibility, delegating, managing, measuring, comitting or following up.
In short....was not qualified for the job and it is showing every day for the past 6++ years. In corporate America he would have been gone by the end of year one!!!!!

:agree: :thumbup:

[Guest]

"Got us through"? How, by walking away from the war in Iraq and leaving a void for ISIS and Iran? Improving the economy by more government regulation? The Fed, and the Fed alone, is responsible for the meager, slow-paced recovery that were are currently experiencing.

As you know, the FOMC met yesterday and today and the Fed Funds Rate remains unchanged. Not a positive sign of a healthy ecomony. The Food Stamp recipient rate is up and the labor participation rate is down under Obama. Yeah, what a great "president" he's has been for the economy.

:thumbup:

[Guest]

1. I need some creditible links and back ups to your statement..."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. " FACTS please on how he did this. Links to prove your accusations.

2. Since you blame all the bank problems in one way with ABSOLUTELY no facts except what you typed. Do you think the Community Reinvestment Act might have helped just a tad ? FACTS and LINKS with accusations please !

3.Have you investigated and read the CBO analysis on Obama Care ? Do you know the affect this bill has had/will have on our national budget for years ? FACTS PLEASE. Links to prove your accusations.

Once you prove with links and facts on your accusations, I will continue

I think I hear crickets...........

[Guest]

You want to talk about total BS. Take a good look at your post. Your looking at the end results of the Great Recession, and placing all the blame on Obama. So, so what did Obama do prior to his presidency that caused the Great Recession, and the Iraq war? The ACA definitely falls in his lap.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014 (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm)

You start running the clock on his contribution to the debt at 9/30/09, there is no way that it will double. That includes handing him programs like food stamps, whose increase was a direct result of the Great Recession. Drop in home ownership direct result of the Great Recession. Increasing unemployment benefits to 99 weeks a direct result of the Great Recession.

Try honestly looking at the causes of the debt increase, and place the blame, if you have too, where it belongs.

You mentioned the Iraq war, and I see nobody debating the entry.

HOWEVER, HOW and WHY we left in such haste, which by every military account I have read or that is available was the largest single factor in the explosion of ISIS and savage terrorism in the ME.

I also would request some documented links, proof or something that tells us that the increase in poverty programs you mention are a result of the 2008 recession. You cannot just say things and make accusations with no basis and you have none, nor will find any.

And any analysis, good or bad will need to wait until the economic albatross called ACA is totally implemented

[Guest]

You mentioned the Iraq war, and I see nobody debating the entry.

HOWEVER, HOW and WHY we left in such haste, which by every military account I have read or that is available was the largest single factor in the explosion of ISIS and savage terrorism in the ME.

I also would request some documented links, proof or something that tells us that the increase in poverty programs you mention are a result of the 2008 recession. You cannot just say things and make accusations with no basis and you have none, nor will find any.

And any analysis, good or bad will need to wait until the economic albatross called ACA is totally implemented

:thumbup:

[Guest]

I think I hear crickets...........

Yes...the poster to whom I replied with questions came on here and vilified all the posters except himself in post #22.

He simply makes up what he wants and then calls out people for not presenting facts.

I will have another sit of questions for him when and if he responds to this first group, all of them asking for links and validation. Many of us do that. He NEVER does.

But from now on, he will be challenged.

[Guest]

Reads quite like a fantasy novel. You have a very interesting imagination. If not for so many false statements, it would almost be a bit believable. Sorry, but if all liberals believe your post, then we have a lot of imbeciles in our country.

I backed everyone of those factual statements on Factcheck.org. It is you who is delusional. I am not an imbecile and I can tie my shoes I assure you. Republicans have big mouths and get very personal. Democrats don't speak up enough.

[Guest]

I think I hear crickets...........

I told you where to find the backup on those facts....... factcheck.org

[Guest]

You are the person that does everything that you are accusing me of, and then some. That is a little more than ironic. You had better take a good look at my posts, because it appears that you have a very selective memory. If I goggle something, I cut, and paste the article here. The comment made by McCain's man, it was made on Morning Joe on MSNBC this week. You know the station you never watch.

You are damn right I brought Colin Powell. You would think that an open minded person, which some here profess to be, would be interested in what a former REPUBLICAN SECRETARY OF STATE had to say about the Iranian agreement especially one that a lot to do with what is going on in the middle east now. I couldn't have been any more wrong. What turned Colin Powell into the devil? If you think that it didn't have anything to do with race, answer the question?

I am going to answer a question with a question. You tell me one thing that you have said that doesn't criticize the Democratic party, and in particular Obama. On this board, how could I possibly add anything to the mountain of total nonsense that has been directed at the Democratic party by the all knowing, all seeing people that post here?

As far as the Iran deal is concerned, all you ever hear from Republicans is "if this", "if that", "when they get a nuclear bomb", "when they cheat". " we are selling Israel out". Who the hell wants to answer a never ending bunch of hypotheticals from people, who have never seen the deal? These same people are getting their information from the Republicans in Congress, who were against it without even seeing the deal. The only station that they watch is Fox News, which is the Republican Broadcasting System.

Why would say that people here don't know that other countries were involved in the Iran agreement? Are you kidding me? Maybe because you have dismissed every other country, and the UN in this deal as having other alternative motives other than stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, which was the reason for the sanctions, and the talks.

Take a look at this video ... it will make you feel better.

Iran Side Effects (http://www.iransideeffects.com/)

[Guest]

I backed everyone of those factual statements on Factcheck.org. It is you who is delusional. I am not an imbecile and I can tie my shoes I assure you. Republicans have big mouths and get very personal. Democrats don't speak up enough.

Actually Democrats speak all the time ... a lot of them always seem to have pent up rage. Hmmm, sound familiar?

[Guest]

Total BS!

Here's some examples that tell a different story:

My insurance premium went up 43% since 2009. I doubt my story is isolated.

Home ownership has dropped by 3.2 percentage points, to the lowest point in nearly 20 years. = FactCheck.org

Long term unemployed 86,000 more than when Obama entered office = Factcheck.org

Debt held by public 106%

Food stamps up 70% under Obama = Washington Times [45% higher than when Obama was sworn in = Factcheck.org] Either number is too much.

More blacks unemployed since Obama
More black babies aborted last year than born

More of population at poverty level since Obama

EGP so low its stagnant.

National debt will be double what it was when Obama was sworn in by the time he leaves office. It took 40 presidents to accumulate as much debt as Obama has in two terms. By the way, we haven't paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.

You want facts but your facts are incorrect. There are no facts that say home owners insurance is up. There are a list of facts on factcheck.org that dispute your "Facts". Go to Obama’s Numbers (April 2015 Update) (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/)

[Guest]

You want facts but your facts are incorrect. There are no facts that say home owners insurance is up. There are a list of facts on factcheck.org that dispute your "Facts". Go to Obama’s Numbers (April 2015 Update) (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/)

Is the premium incres over the last three years fact enough?

Check your neigbors not the talking points bulletin!

[Guest]

You want facts but your facts are incorrect. There are no facts that say home owners insurance is up. There are a list of facts on factcheck.org that dispute your "Facts". Go to Obama’s Numbers (April 2015 Update) (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/)

I went back and read the post, but darn if I can find anywhere in it where it said "HOME OWNERS INSURANCE" is up. Please correct me if I am wrong. Methinks there may be a bat in yous belfry. :MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

I told you where to find the backup on those facts....... factcheck.org

Sorry it just does not work that way.

You do not get to come on here and just make accusations and say you saw it on TV.

Lets start with just ONE of your accusations and we can work through them one at a time.

"."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

THAT is your quote and your accusations. Back it up somehow...tell us how. YOU cannot just make statements like that.

Now, hoping you can do two things at a time. I asked you to read about the CRC act and how it affected the banking industry crisis. DID YOU READ IT ?

Or, are you going to continue your ranting and raving with nothing to back anything up.

Oh and fair warning...links from either the right or left side of the aisle..you know the links all over the internet that support ONLY one side or another.....Read the Economist, a bit liberal but pretty good stuff there. The Wall St Journal, and those type of links.

PLEASE stop making any accusations until you back up what you have already posted. You are mouthing the old wives tales from political sites and politicians that have nothing to do with facts.

[Guest]

You want facts but your facts are incorrect. There are no facts that say home owners insurance is up. There are a list of facts on factcheck.org that dispute your "Facts". Go to Obama’s Numbers (April 2015 Update) (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/)

Health Insurance. Sorry if I didn't spell it out for you. You know, Obamacare that everyone has been fighting about for the past six years?

[Guest]

Sorry it just does not work that way.

You do not get to come on here and just make accusations and say you saw it on TV.

Lets start with just ONE of your accusations and we can work through them one at a time.

"."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

THAT is your quote and your accusations. Back it up somehow...tell us how. YOU cannot just make statements like that.

Now, hoping you can do two things at a time. I asked you to read about the CRC act and how it affected the banking industry crisis. DID YOU READ IT ?

Or, are you going to continue your ranting and raving with nothing to back anything up.

Oh and fair warning...links from either the right or left side of the aisle..you know the links all over the internet that support ONLY one side or another.....Read the Economist, a bit liberal but pretty good stuff there. The Wall St Journal, and those type of links.

PLEASE stop making any accusations until you back up what you have already posted. You are mouthing the old wives tales from political sites and politicians that have nothing to do with facts.

It's amazing how they disappear into mystic vapors when you ask them to qualify their statements. Liberals are so used to someone else doing their work for them, that their heads explode when you put them on the spot to answer a legitimate question or two. Perhaps Huffington Post needs a better search function?

[Guest]

This is addressed to the poster who continually posts taking aim at anything and everything that is Republican, even though he "throws a bone" at them every once in awhile on something non committal.

He constantly and without end backs whatever our President does or does not do. It appears to him that the man does no wrong.

I have asked him about one of the accusations with no response. The one where he said that President Bush brought down the auto industry and he said exactly that and then just continued on.

My friend, I am a Republican. I do not support most of what our President does for any number of reasons, BUT I never say he is always wrong and actually on this forum applauded some of the things he did when his tenure began.

I tell you this because, I am not like you and so short sighted that I simply post a percentage here or a percentage here. Whatever will support the President. I prefer to do multiple reading to get context on the subject matter.

You speak of unemployment....there is a quandry facing this country and because it is not politically expediant it is not talked about very much and you will find it offensive I am sure....

I simply want to make a point about how you post and why you get such grief.

This....

"The percentage of adult Americans working or actively looking for a job stands at 62.6 percent, the lowest level in nearly four decades."

That is from Bureau of Labor Statistics. IF this information was something that made Obama look good you would find a way to post how wonderful he has done and use that statement as a tool.

In fact it is TRUE, but there are so many variables as there are with most of what you spout....you miss the context and simply mouth what you hear that suits your need to post.

The preference would be that you study it and stop making accusations. Let go of the racist claims.let go of the blame Bush for everything.

Now on labor parcticipation.....read a bit and maybe you want to discuss it...LOWEST PARTICIPATION IN FORTY YEARS.

As Paul Harvey used to say...."Here is the rest of the story"..

"In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.

All told, it's likely to be a drag on the U.S. economy for years to come.

The U.S. economy has created 11.5 million new jobs during the last 57 consecutive months of domestic labor force expansion. And there were nearly 5.4 million open jobs at the end of May – more than twice as many vacancies as there were six years ago.

And yet Americans are actually trickling out of work at an alarming rate. The country's labor force participation rate – which measures the share of Americans at least 16 years old who are either employed or actively looking for work – dipped last month to a 38-year low, clocking in at an underwhelming 62.6 percent.

Unemployed individuals who haven't actively looked for a job in the last four weeks, for any number of reasons, actually slip away from the Labor Department's unemployment calculations. So although the unemployment rate ticked down to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent in June, that number didn't do justice to the 640,000 individuals who exited the labor market last month and the nearly 94 million people who were neither employed nor looking for work.

Point is before you make such rash accusation and statements as calling me and others racist, which you did a few times or blame someone for everything or defend the President as if he were the God you think he is....READ and do not just read the stuff that is put out to make a POLITICAL case.

[Guest]

You want facts but your facts are incorrect. There are no facts that say home owners insurance is up. There are a list of facts on factcheck.org that dispute your "Facts". Go to Obama’s Numbers (April 2015 Update) (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/)

As you can see, I used numbers obtained from several sources, including numbers from TreasuryDirect.gov. You are the one that took one line out of context (which may have been my mistake for not spelling it out for you) and tried to call me a liar. Believe me when I say, I got each one of those lines by using Google, so you are free to dispute it. But, if you are going to open your mouth to dispute my comment, then do it with a countering quote from a decent source. I showed you where the national debt will double during Obama's administration. It is already close to achieving that number, so don't act so indignant. I realize that the truth hurts and Obama's ego is being blemished, but that's life. It now seems that polls are showing that America would rather have Bush in the White House again, rather than this amateur.

[Guest]

Health Insurance. Sorry if I didn't spell it out for you. You know, Obamacare that everyone has been fighting about for the past six years?

On that subject and again saying NOTHING is as ideal as Obama wants it to be nor the Republicans oppostion.

Obamacare is the age old debate between BIG government and SMALL government. Obama care insure BIG govern ment and while many kind of details are used in debates, that and states rights are the basis of the entire conversation.

A few thing to refer to....first a very short article on Obama Care which ends wit this.

"We’ve examined the promise and the result, Obamacares effect on the economy, and offered a viable alternative. At the present time there are signs that businesses are tightening their collective belts. Government is supposed to exist to “serve the people.” Instead, we have a system where the people are serving the government. I also see the financial and regulatory burden is growing. What will make American businesses more competitive on the global stage? Business-friendly policies from Washington! The irony is that the government doesn’t exist without the private sector. They are, in a sense, brothers. Yet as brothers often do, they are engaged in a sibling rivalry."

Forbes Welcome (http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2014/02/25/is-obamacare-an-economic-disaster/)

The link below takes you to another article from CNBC and goes back to 2014 and also I think relates to the link I gave on the jobless rate, etc. The article is about the impact of the ACA on economic growth. In that quarter when the article was written, the growth rate went down and is forecast by the way to continue to go down this year for a number of reasons. I give you two quotes from and links for articles that are either specifically tuned into the economic impact of ACA on our country and the rate of growth.

This from CNBC discussing the impact with the mandate on employers mandate...

"Get ready for more dampening effects on the economy from Obamacare, too. The Washington Post reminded readers this week that the employer mandates will soon come into force for most businesses, which now have to make decisions on staffing, hours, and benefits for their 2015 budgets. The Post focuses first on a restaurant chain in Idaho to see how the employer mandate has impacted staffing and benefit decisions."

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/26/obamacare-will-suck-the-life-out-of-the-economy.html

And this is simply showing the impact this bill has and will have on our economy..This using information from the CBO is just a few days old

"Repealing ObamaCare’s individual mandate would save about $300 billion over the next decade while driving the nation’s uninsured rate back up to 2013 levels, according to new federal budget estimates.

Government health departments would save about $311 billion over 10 years if Republicans successfully repealed the mandate, which requires nearly all adults to purchase healthcare or pay a penalty.

The updated figures, which were released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday, give a boost to congressional Republicans hoping to repeal the mandate this fall through a budget tool known as reconciliation. Under congressional rules, any reconciliation package must be determined to reduce the deficit.


CBO: Nixing ObamaCare mandate would reduce deficit by $300B | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/253710-cbo-nixing-obamacare-mandate-would-reduce-deficit-by-300b)

And finally on the economy of our country.,.

"The U.S. economic outlook for 2015 will be significantly different depending on your vantage point. If you’re wealthy, 2015 will probably be another year of celebratory wealth creation.

If, on the other hand, you’re not, 2015 will feel an awful lot like 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009. Wall Street and the U.S. government will tell you the economy is doing well, but it won’t feel like it.

In fact, according to a national survey, 70% of Americans believe the U.S. economy is permanently damaged, while 84% do not believe the economy has improved since the recession ended in 2009.


Economic Outlook 2015 | US Economic Forecast 2015 (http://economicoutlook2015.com/)

AGAIN, please read as much as you care to. Each link will supply both liberals and conservatives fodder is they wish but it will keep you from reading very bias things and making claims and accusations that are not valid.

[Guest]

And I might add, I am still waiting for some back up for this accusation...

""."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

Cannot move on if your going to ignore any challenge to what you accuse people of

[Guest]

Sorry it just does not work that way.

You do not get to come on here and just make accusations and say you saw it on TV.

Lets start with just ONE of your accusations and we can work through them one at a time.

"."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

THAT is your quote and your accusations. Back it up somehow...tell us how. YOU cannot just make statements like that.

Now, hoping you can do two things at a time. I asked you to read about the CRC act and how it affected the banking industry crisis. DID YOU READ IT ?

Or, are you going to continue your ranting and raving with nothing to back anything up.

Oh and fair warning...links from either the right or left side of the aisle..you know the links all over the internet that support ONLY one side or another.....Read the Economist, a bit liberal but pretty good stuff there. The Wall St Journal, and those type of links.

PLEASE stop making any accusations until you back up what you have already posted. You are mouthing the old wives tales from political sites and politicians that have nothing to do with facts.

I do believe that I am not the one ranting and raving. And if your insurance is too high, change your carrier like most people do.

[Guest]

You mentioned the Iraq war, and I see nobody debating the entry.

HOWEVER, HOW and WHY we left in such haste, which by every military account I have read or that is available was the largest single factor in the explosion of ISIS and savage terrorism in the ME.

I also would request some documented links, proof or something that tells us that the increase in poverty programs you mention are a result of the 2008 recession. You cannot just say things and make accusations with no basis and you have none, nor will find any.

And any analysis, good or bad will need to wait until the economic albatross called ACA is totally implemented

How about some documentation backing up the statement that we left Iraq in haste? Before you go on a wild goose chase read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

"W" signed an agreement with Maliki that we would leave on a certain date. Maliki wouldn't budge from that date. The majority of US citizens wanted us out of there. What haste are you talking about?

Concerning the increase in poverty programs resulting from the 2008 recession, how about using some common sense. Food stamps are based upon income, and number of dependents. When people are out of work, their income is going to go down (do you need support for that statement). So, many are going to qualify for food stamps. The extension to 99 weeks unemployment is a damn good indication that these people weren't getting new jobs in one big hurry. Many of the jobs that people were forced to take were low paying jobs. Many people dropped out of the job market. One would assume that many were second person in a household. When the family income went down in low income families, they qualify for food stamps on an ongoing basis. Why is that so hard to understand?

What poverty programs did Obama put into place? If he didn't start any new programs, what could have increase the spending in the existing programs? What else could it be other than 2008 recession?

[Guest]

How about some documentation backing up the statement that we left Iraq in haste? Before you go on a wild goose chase read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

"W" signed an agreement with Maliki that we would leave on a certain date. Maliki wouldn't budge from that date. The majority of US citizens wanted us out of there. What haste are you talking about?

Concerning the increase in poverty programs resulting from the 2008 recession, how about using some common sense. Food stamps are based upon income, and number of dependents. When people are out of work, their income is going to go down (do you need support for that statement). So, many are going to qualify for food stamps. The extension to 99 weeks unemployment is a damn good indication that these people weren't getting new jobs in one big hurry. Many of the jobs that people were forced to take were low paying jobs. Many people dropped out of the job market. One would assume that many were second person in a household. When the family income went down in low income families, they qualify for food stamps on an ongoing basis. Why is that so hard to understand?

What poverty programs did Obama put into place? If he didn't start any new programs, what could have increase the spending in the existing programs? What else could it be other than 2008 recession?

First of all, let me say thanks for a reasonable response. This is what this forum is about, ie. to exchange thoughts, share information. All too often, anything said is met with snarky smart !@@ comments, so thank you.

You are correct that there was no agreement with Maliki, but almost EVERY military and foreign relation expert I have read insist that if we wanted to have such an agreement, it would be done. For example...Leon Panetta who was a member of the administration at the time.

"In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)."

"Panetta acknowledged the difficulties of putting together the agreement that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in the country - it had the support of various leaders in Iraq, but none who were willing to back it publicly - but also said the U.S. could have used its leverage, such as reconstruction aid money, to convince then-President Nouri al-Maliki to support a continued U.S. presence."

Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leon-panetta-criticizes-obama-for-iraq-withdrawal/)

I hope you are still reading because here is the most informative...

"He said that Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy advocated that position - which was shared by military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta writes - but found that Mr. Obama's team at the White House "pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated."

"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said.

Panetta writes of his frustration at the White House, which he says coordinated negotiations but never really led them. And without Mr. Obama's "personal advocacy," a deal with Maliki was allowed "to slip away."

So I must admit that literally you are correct, but as so much in the realm of politics and foreign affairs we are surrounded by nuance and context.

On the food stamp question, I simply asked you to validate your claim as to the direct cause of the increase. I never ever blamed anyone and will not because I do not know, but so many either blame Obama or Bush and I just want someone to validate what they are saying. We had a poster suggest yesterday that Bush, himself, caused the auto slow down which is absurd at best.

[Guest]

I do believe that I am not the one ranting and raving. And if your insurance is too high, change your carrier like most people do.

I am not the poster with the auto insurance....

I am the poster who has asked so many times for your to begin to back up your accusations and the FIRST one of those is this...

""."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

I am doing nothing but calling you out on your stupid unsubstantiated accusations. If there is a point to be made,....fine, but you just throw things out.

I have been waiting for quite some time on this question to be answered and hear your validation with links etc, and then I have many more for you on your absurd comments.

[Guest]

I am not the poster with the auto insurance....

I am the poster who has asked so many times for your to begin to back up your accusations and the FIRST one of those is this...

""."the auto industry which George Bush's presidency had led to ruin, almost bankruptcy. "

I am doing nothing but calling you out on your stupid unsubstantiated accusations. If there is a point to be made,....fine, but you just throw things out.

I have been waiting for quite some time on this question to be answered and hear your validation with links etc, and then I have many more for you on your absurd comments.

You won't live long enough!

[Guest]

You won't live long enough!

Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. I would expect the same if I just came on here and made such statements.

He takes the spin for a biased site and then spreads it here with such terrible generality and expects to be respected for that.

[Guest]

Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. I would expect the same if I just came on here and made such statements.

He takes the spin for a biased site and then spreads it here with such terrible generality and expects to be respected for that.

Liberals spend a lot of time with their heads buried in the sand, consequently, they are always showing their butts on forms like this one.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1115914]Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. QUOTE]

He will have to DEAl with you? Sounds like a challenge to a fight to me. Is it going to be on Main Street at High Noon with flyswatters? :boxing2: :1rotfl:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1115914]Well, that poster and his unfounded accusations will need to deal with me responding to all of his posts I recognize with my questions. QUOTE]

He will have to DEAl with you? Sounds like a challenge to a fight to me. Is it going to be on Main Street at High Noon with flyswatters? :boxing2: :1rotfl:

You really need to work on your reading comprehension A LOT.

I SAID "...need to me responding to all his posts..."

Where are you posting from...Cody's ? It sure sounds like it.

[Guest]

And those little doo dads.....you must be so proud. I recall in 7th grade, some guys drawing that "Kilroy was here" signs. My first thought when I see them

[Guest]

National Debt 12/31/2008 = $10,699,804,864,612.13

National Debt 9/15/2015 = $18,151,049,785,935.02

TreasuryDirert.gov

You can do the math, I think.

The Great Recession was only that because Obama made it last as long as he could. Any other president in history could have/did better at the economy than this incompetent. He wasn't given anything. He ran with Hope and Change. IT's all his and he owns it. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he had plans to hose it up. He hates America and anyone can see it that isn't blind. How many recessions or depressions have we had? How long did it take for us to rebound? Nope, blame it on Bush all you want, but it's Bush that everyone would rather have in there right now than Obama. Check out the polls.

I have no problem with math, and no problem with logic. I will be more than happy to listen to your reasoning as to why the debt incurred between 1/1/09 thru 9/30/09 should be placed upon Obama's shoulders. What did he do prior becoming president that caused the great recession? That snowball was pushed down the hill in 9/08, and didn't hit the bottom until 7/09.

He hates America and anyone that says that is a moron.

[Guest]

I have no problem with math, and no problem with logic. I will be more than happy to listen to your reasoning as to why the debt incurred between 1/1/09 thru 9/30/09 should be placed upon Obama's shoulders. What did he do prior becoming president that caused the great recession? That snowball was pushed down the hill in 9/08, and didn't hit the bottom until 7/09.

He hates America and anyone that says that is a moron.

So, Obama wasn't president in '09? I think that you are just trying to squirm out of the fact that you were wrong with your numbers. Like I said, and I will say again, Obama has or will have doubled the national debt during his presidency. He didn't have a budget in how many years? So, it is impossible for him to balance a budget. He has had a deficit every year, adding to the national debt, and now you on the left think he has accomplished a major victory because his deficit for the past year was supposedly less than a trillion bucks. A deficit is still a deficit, and everyone has them. No president has paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.

You can blame Bush for a recession but Bush also had one after 9/11 and it didn't take the country 8 years to recover. This administration has taken longer than any other to recover from a recession or depression. Obama is going to go down in history as probably the worst leader of any presidents, including Carter.
And yes, I do believe he hates America. I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. And it doesn't help any when you have liberals always defending his inept or purposely bad decisions. He is a failed liberal experiment, with the sole purpose of moving America into socialism. He is so bad that he couldn't even accomplish that in totality.

[Guest]

National Debt 12/31/2008 = $10,699,804,864,612.13

National Debt 9/15/2015 = $18,151,049,785,935.02

TreasuryDirert.gov

You can do the math, I think.

The Great Recession was only that because Obama made it last as long as he could. Any other president in history could have/did better at the economy than this incompetent. He wasn't given anything. He ran with Hope and Change. IT's all his and he owns it. He knew exactly what he was getting into and he had plans to hose it up. He hates America and anyone can see it that isn't blind. How many recessions or depressions have we had? How long did it take for us to rebound? Nope, blame it on Bush all you want, but it's Bush that everyone would rather have in there right now than Obama. Check out the polls.

Odd that you say "everyone would rather have Bush in office than Obama". Do you need to be reminded of who was elected? Your figures on the National Debt are incorrect. From Politifact.com I copied this last paragraph:

"Our ruling

(Rand) Paul said, "Debt doubled" under Bush "and now it’s tripling under Barack Obama’s watch."

This statement is confusing. A person could easily interpret it to mean that debt has tripled since Obama took office -- which would be incorrect. Paul, on the other hand, said that it means debt today, under Obama, is triple what it was when Bush’s term started.

Indeed, today’s national debt is about triple what it was in January 2001, when Bush took office.

It's also worth noting that many factors other than a particular president's policies affect the national debt.

From one not-so-obvious angle, Paul's numbers are correct. But because the statement could so easily be interpreted in another, less accurate way, we rate it Half True."


About this statement:

Published: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.

Researched by: Lauren Carroll

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Debt

Sources:

Rand Paul campaign launch transcript, April 7, 2015

U.S. Treasury, Debt to the Penny, accessed April 9, 2015

Tax Policy Center, Federal Debt 1940-2020, Feb. 2, 2015

PolitiFact, "RNC chair Reince Priebus says Barack Obama has 'the worst record of any president' on debt," Dec. 4, 2014

Email interview, Paul spokesman Sergio Gor, April 8, 2015

Email interview, George Washington Law professor Neil Buchanan, April 8, 2015

Email interview, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes, April 8, 2015

SOrry, I can't go back and copy the link without losing this post.

[Guest]

So, Obama wasn't president in '09? I think that you are just trying to squirm out of the fact that you were wrong with your numbers. Like I said, and I will say again, Obama has or will have doubled the national debt during his presidency. He didn't have a budget in how many years? So, it is impossible for him to balance a budget. He has had a deficit every year, adding to the national debt, and now you on the left think he has accomplished a major victory because his deficit for the past year was supposedly less than a trillion bucks. A deficit is still a deficit, and everyone has them. No president has paid down on the national debt since Eisenhower.

You can blame Bush for a recession but Bush also had one after 9/11 and it didn't take the country 8 years to recover. This administration has taken longer than any other to recover from a recession or depression. Obama is going to go down in history as probably the worst leader of any presidents, including Carter.
And yes, I do believe he hates America. I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. And it doesn't help any when you have liberals always defending his inept or purposely bad decisions. He is a failed liberal experiment, with the sole purpose of moving America into socialism. He is so bad that he couldn't even accomplish that in totality.

Obama was left with a monumental mess when he took office. History will tell whether Obama was the worst or one of the best presidents......liberals are smart enough not to make a definitive statement such as Obama being a "failure". With all the blockades thrown up by Congress and the Senate, I am surprised that anything got fixed. And if Obama is such a failure and hates America, maybe anyone one of you armchair "experts" should run for president.

[Guest]

Odd that you say "everyone would rather have Bush in office than Obama". Do you need to be reminded of who was elected? Your figures on the National Debt are incorrect. From Politifact.com I copied this last paragraph:

"Our ruling

(Rand) Paul said, "Debt doubled" under Bush "and now it’s tripling under Barack Obama’s watch."

This statement is confusing. A person could easily interpret it to mean that debt has tripled since Obama took office -- which would be incorrect. Paul, on the other hand, said that it means debt today, under Obama, is triple what it was when Bush’s term started.

Indeed, today’s national debt is about triple what it was in January 2001, when Bush took office.

It's also worth noting that many factors other than a particular president's policies affect the national debt.

From one not-so-obvious angle, Paul's numbers are correct. But because the statement could so easily be interpreted in another, less accurate way, we rate it Half True."


About this statement:

Published: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.

Researched by: Lauren Carroll

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Debt

Sources:

Rand Paul campaign launch transcript, April 7, 2015

U.S. Treasury, Debt to the Penny, accessed April 9, 2015

Tax Policy Center, Federal Debt 1940-2020, Feb. 2, 2015

PolitiFact, "RNC chair Reince Priebus says Barack Obama has 'the worst record of any president' on debt," Dec. 4, 2014

Email interview, Paul spokesman Sergio Gor, April 8, 2015

Email interview, George Washington Law professor Neil Buchanan, April 8, 2015

Email interview, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes, April 8, 2015

SOrry, I can't go back and copy the link without losing this post.

So, you are saying that the government website is wrong? Sounds like you are desperately reaching for the spin button. Any excuse to pardon the worst president in history. At least Carter can pass peacefully knowing that he no longer holds that honor/disgrace.

[Guest]

Obama was left with a monumental mess when he took office. History will tell whether Obama was the worst or one of the best presidents......liberals are smart enough not to make a definitive statement such as Obama being a "failure". With all the blockades thrown up by Congress and the Senate, I am surprised that anything got fixed. And if Obama is such a failure and hates America, maybe anyone one of you armchair "experts" should run for president.

Oooh, so serious! Obama had two full years of NON-resistence. He had complete control and spent the whole time passing that disastrous Obamacare. Appears to me like you are trying anything to excuse a very inept non-leader. The great Leader from behind, of the great gay pride.

By the way, the only blockades present were on Reid's desk waiting for a vote. This armchair expert could have done a better job and was more qualified than Obama. I just didn't have affirmative action going for me.

[Guest]

Obama was left with a monumental mess when he took office. History will tell whether Obama was the worst or one of the best presidents......liberals are smart enough not to make a definitive statement such as Obama being a "failure". With all the blockades thrown up by Congress and the Senate, I am surprised that anything got fixed. And if Obama is such a failure and hates America, maybe anyone one of you armchair "experts" should run for president.

OK so you think he has been blocked....it really does sound like an excuse, but anyway forget that part.

Please tell us all about what he was able to get accomplished his first two years in office when both houses of congress were democrtatic? Nobody there to block him during those years.

And I do think you are confused about the blocking. We all know the king of blockage, Harry Reid, did not let ANY legislation through to the senate floor unless it was in line with the democratic agenda. That is the blockage you must be recollecting!

Take your time!

[Guest]

Odd that you say "everyone would rather have Bush in office than Obama". Do you need to be reminded of who was elected? Your figures on the National Debt are incorrect. From Politifact.com I copied this last paragraph:

"Our ruling

(Rand) Paul said, "Debt doubled" under Bush "and now it’s tripling under Barack Obama’s watch."

This statement is confusing. A person could easily interpret it to mean that debt has tripled since Obama took office -- which would be incorrect. Paul, on the other hand, said that it means debt today, under Obama, is triple what it was when Bush’s term started.

Indeed, today’s national debt is about triple what it was in January 2001, when Bush took office.

It's also worth noting that many factors other than a particular president's policies affect the national debt.

From one not-so-obvious angle, Paul's numbers are correct. But because the statement could so easily be interpreted in another, less accurate way, we rate it Half True."


About this statement:

Published: Thursday, April 9th, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.

Researched by: Lauren Carroll

Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

Subjects: Debt

Sources:

Rand Paul campaign launch transcript, April 7, 2015

U.S. Treasury, Debt to the Penny, accessed April 9, 2015

Tax Policy Center, Federal Debt 1940-2020, Feb. 2, 2015

PolitiFact, "RNC chair Reince Priebus says Barack Obama has 'the worst record of any president' on debt," Dec. 4, 2014

Email interview, Paul spokesman Sergio Gor, April 8, 2015

Email interview, George Washington Law professor Neil Buchanan, April 8, 2015

Email interview, Harvard professor Linda Bilmes, April 8, 2015

SOrry, I can't go back and copy the link without losing this post.

Talk about confused. There was no mention of Paul's statement in the other post. It said accurately that the national debt was.......on such a date. It then said that the national debt was ......on the next date. Is that hard for you to understand? It was direct quotes taken from a government website. And you are saying that poster was wrong? And your information is right? Admit you are wrong and move on. Point for the other team.

The poster also stated that current polls favored Bush. What has that got to do with Obama being elected now? Either you are very desperate to defend, or you are a bit confused.

[Guest]

Let's examine the information provided by the poster's gov website:

He said Dec 31, 2008 the national debt was = $10,699,804,864,612.13 *correct*
He said current national debt was = $18,151,049,785,935.02 *correct*

Ok so far

You said it should only count after Sep 30, 2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75
Today's national debt is == $18,154,723,985,268.48

So the yearly average is what? About $1 > trillion
So, if there is no decrease in the yearly national debt, we should average about $2+ trillion more by the end of Oabma's term, plus or minus what Obamacare will cost.

Hmmm, seems like he was right in stating that Obama will have doubled the national debt. Even with your date calculations.

Do you have any information to dispute his claim?

[Guest]

First of all, let me say thanks for a reasonable response. This is what this forum is about, ie. to exchange thoughts, share information. All too often, anything said is met with snarky smart !@@ comments, so thank you.

You are correct that there was no agreement with Maliki, but almost EVERY military and foreign relation expert I have read insist that if we wanted to have such an agreement, it would be done. For example...Leon Panetta who was a member of the administration at the time.

"In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)."

"Panetta acknowledged the difficulties of putting together the agreement that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in the country - it had the support of various leaders in Iraq, but none who were willing to back it publicly - but also said the U.S. could have used its leverage, such as reconstruction aid money, to convince then-President Nouri al-Maliki to support a continued U.S. presence."

Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/leon-panetta-criticizes-obama-for-iraq-withdrawal/)

I hope you are still reading because here is the most informative...

"He said that Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy advocated that position - which was shared by military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta writes - but found that Mr. Obama's team at the White House "pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated."

"Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests," he said.

Panetta writes of his frustration at the White House, which he says coordinated negotiations but never really led them. And without Mr. Obama's "personal advocacy," a deal with Maliki was allowed "to slip away."

So I must admit that literally you are correct, but as so much in the realm of politics and foreign affairs we are surrounded by nuance and context.

On the food stamp question, I simply asked you to validate your claim as to the direct cause of the increase. I never ever blamed anyone and will not because I do not know, but so many either blame Obama or Bush and I just want someone to validate what they are saying. We had a poster suggest yesterday that Bush, himself, caused the auto slow down which is absurd at best.

Concerning your question about food stamps, this article pretty much confirms what I stated. I didn't see this article until you asked for validation.

The New Face Of Food Stamps: Working-Age Americans (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/26/food-stamps_n_4669729.html)

[Guest]

Let's examine the information provided by the poster's gov website:

He said Dec 31, 2008 the national debt was = $10,699,804,864,612.13 *correct*
He said current national debt was = $18,151,049,785,935.02 *correct*

Ok so far

You said it should only count after Sep 30, 2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75
Today's national debt is == $18,154,723,985,268.48

So the yearly average is what? About $1 > trillion
So, if there is no decrease in the yearly national debt, we should average about $2+ trillion more by the end of Oabma's term, plus or minus what Obamacare will cost.

Hmmm, seems like he was right in stating that Obama will have doubled the national debt. Even with your date calculations.

Do you have any information to dispute his claim?


It has tripled since Bush took office, doubling during Bush's term.

[Guest]

Let's examine the information provided by the poster's gov website:

He said Dec 31, 2008 the national debt was = $10,699,804,864,612.13 *correct*
He said current national debt was = $18,151,049,785,935.02 *correct*

Ok so far

You said it should only count after Sep 30, 2009 = $11,909,829,003,511.75
Today's national debt is == $18,154,723,985,268.48

So the yearly average is what? About $1 > trillion
So, if there is no decrease in the yearly national debt, we should average about $2+ trillion more by the end of Oabma's term, plus or minus what Obamacare will cost.

Hmmm, seems like he was right in stating that Obama will have doubled the national debt. Even with your date calculations.

Do you have any information to dispute his claim?

Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

[Guest]

It has tripled since Bush took office, doubling during Bush's term.

Not true. It doubled during Bush's terms, with 2nd term Dem controlled congress and then it will double again during Obama's terms, with Dem controlled first term and tyrant controlled second term.

During Bush's terms, the Avg yearly increase in national debt was in the billions, not trillions. During Obama's terms, the national debt will average over a trillion per year.

The only time in Bush's two terms where the debt went up a trillion bucks was in 2008. And it might be added, that congress was controlled by Dems since 2007. Never in Obama's terms did the yearly national debt increase go below a trillion.

You can scream about unfunded wars during Bush, but the fact remains that even then the national debt per year was below a trillion until 2008.
Obama had complete control of congress for two whole years, and was not able to get a handle on the debt problem, increasing the ceiling every year against advice from Republicans and economists.

I got my figures from TreasuryDirect.gov if anyone wishes to verify my information. If you want to see who controlled congress during those years considered, I used Wikipedia. I took into consideration the fiscal year, not the actual years of office, because of the protests posted by Obamanites on here.

To summarize, Bush did double the national debt. But, not one year of Bush's two terms increased by a trillion dollars, except until fiscal year 2008. Dem's controlled congress from 2007 on.
Obama has never had a year of national debt less than a trillion dollars and won't. Regardless of excuses, congress as well as the white house was totally controlled by Dem's for the first two years of his first term. He was advised not to increase the debt loan ceiling by the GOP as well as the economists but did so with threats and slurs. Since Obama's reign, the GDP has tanked and stagnated. This is the longest recession/depression recovery in history, that's due to poor management by this administration.

We have the most people that have left the work force
We have the highest amount of people on food stamps
Unemployment benefits were extended for over a year
The most workers that have retired early
House sales lowest in decades

On top of all this Obama has ruined our foreign policy
He has racially divided this country worst than any previous president in history.
He has used his power to prevent immigration laws from being enforced
Not to mention what he has done as far as shredding the constitution.

[Guest]

Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

I wonder where you learned your math. See the post above for the actual information linked to a gov website. Your magical math doesn't compute. You must be using some of that new modern math.

[Guest]

Kind of hard for Obama to work the figures when he never had a budget to work with. The only president to go through a whole term without a budget.

[Guest]

Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

Obama doesn't need any help at being "demeaned." The facts do it for him, without anyone's help. All the facts and evidence condemns him. Obama's debt by year, is double what Bush's was until 2008. The facts are rather blatant.

[Guest]

This is my very first time looking and reading the Political Talk. WOW!

I thought it was going to be actual political discussions that friends could be having in a living room together. Not so at all, eh? It is just angry rantings and personal attacking each other and nonsense attacks of character of candidates.

There is so very little political climate on this group. It says in the "sticky" to have discussions as you would have in a face-to-face discussion. Any person talking to another face to face like so many of these exchanges would have their teeth rearranged, I would think.

Say what you want but it will be without the likes of me. Checking in was for curiousity but leaving is a pleasure. Just know your beliefs are not consistent with the great majority of Villagers - ones who are not angry about life.

This has pretty much been the case with every political forum that I've ever been on. It's terrible.

I didn't think I've ever agree with Bernie Sanders on anything but he's right on the money when he said,

“Too often in our country, and I think both sides bear responsibility for us, there is to much shouting, at each other, there is too much making fun of each other.”

“It is easy to go out and talk with people who agree with you.”

“It is harder but not less important for us to try and communicate with those that do not agree with us.”


The politicians and especially, the media, have us all simply trying to defend "our side". Broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow have made a fortune by demonizing the people that they don't agree with.

If you watched the CNN debate you heard that the purpose of most of the questions was not to get information about ideas, plans and philosophies, but rather to get the candidates fighting with one another.

The whole election process in this country is shot to hell.

[Guest]

We can all agree that such a huge debt is not good for America.
We can all agree that no matter what it was under which administration trying to assign blame (an Obama trend) does nothing to reduce the debt.

The real question for those who are Obama supporters is what has the debt done during Obama's term?

We know it has not gone down, so exactly what is it Obama has done that will put the national debt in a downward/reduction trend.

No blame allowed. It solves nothing except copping out allowed by the uninformed.

Take your time assembling the list of actions (:D).

[Guest]

We can all agree that such a huge debt is not good for America.
We can all agree that no matter what it was under which administration trying to assign blame (an Obama trend) does nothing to reduce the debt.

The real question for those who are Obama supporters is what has the debt done during Obama's term?

We know it has not gone down, so exactly what is it Obama has done that will put the national debt in a downward/reduction trend.

No blame allowed. It solves nothing except copping out allowed by the uninformed.

Take your time assembling the list of actions (:D).

Running up a huge debt is just once more element of Obama's strategy to "transform" (transgender?) America. Making us go bust works quite nicely. Plus, it enables him to turn the turdpile over to his successor, while he's out playing golf.

[Guest]

Let's do some rounding 11.9 trillion round it to 12 trillion. So, 12 trillion times 2 is 24 trillion. 18 trillion plus 2 is 20 trillion. I could be wrong, but it looks like 4 trillion more would have to be added for the national debt to double under Obama. Do you have any other math problems for me?

Concerning the national debt, look what "W" was handed in first year. Then, look at what Obama was handed in first year. It is night, and day.

The two, or three, if you include the great recession, major items that contributed to national debt increase under "W" were the Iraq/Afgan wars, huge tax reduction, mostly to top wage earners, and the great recession. Obama inherited two of the three. The ACA has added to the National debt. Over 50% of the debt increase was a direct result of what Obama was handed.

This is not the blame game. Programs, that were in effect before each president was elected, added to the national debt. You can't place the blame on them for that. Neither did any of "W's" or Obama's policies create the great recession.

If all you want to do is demean Obama, be my guest.

My intention was not to demean Obama. Just sick of everything being blamed on him. I figured someone would try to blame the wildfires on Obama.

[Guest]

My intention was not to demean Obama. Just sick of everything being blamed on him. I figured someone would try to blame the wildfires on Obama.

Actually, to give him credit, Obama does a GREAT job of demeaning himself pretty much every time he opens his mouth or makes another foreign policy misfire.

Let's be fair about this ...

[Guest]

Actually, to give him credit, Obama does a GREAT job of demeaning himself pretty much every time he opens his mouth or makes another foreign policy misfire.

Let's be fair about this ...

:thumbup:

[Guest]

I have yet to read or see anything that Obama has done in the last six years, or possibly in his whole life to further the American dream of peace and freedom, or anything else positive about the American way. He has always been negative and demeaning toward the best in society or anyone that doesn't agree with him. He has never shown any indication in six years that he understands or emulates his powerful position. He always appears to be angry and divisive, as well as negative. He blames everyone else and never takes credit for his mistakes. He is a disappointment and disgrace to the position of president of the best and most powerful country in the world, and an embarrassment.

[Guest]

Wow (in the words of the OP), the posters here are just amazingly negative and really an embarassment to our community.

Someone has no reason to be negative about absolutely everything done by this Administration.

When Hillary gets to be President in 2017, these posters will either have a stroke or just spend the next 8 years with heads spinning and writing diatribes on Political Forum.

[Guest]

Wow (in the words of the OP), the posters here are just amazingly negative and really an embarassment to our community.

Someone has no reason to be negative about absolutely everything done by this Administration.

When Hillary gets to be President in 2017, these posters will either have a stroke or just spend the next 8 years with heads spinning and writing diatribes on Political Forum.

Is this post in lieu of sharing all the good he has accomplished, or debating those being criticized ?

[Guest]

Wow (in the words of the OP), the posters here are just amazingly negative and really an embarassment to our community.

Someone has no reason to be negative about absolutely everything done by this Administration.

When Hillary gets to be President in 2017, these posters will either have a stroke or just spend the next 8 years with heads spinning and writing diatribes on Political Forum.

Well said and I agree. Negative, negative, negative.

[Guest]

I have yet to read or see anything that Obama has done in the last six years, or possibly in his whole life to further the American dream of peace and freedom, or anything else positive about the American way. He has always been negative and demeaning toward the best in society or anyone that doesn't agree with him. He has never shown any indication in six years that he understands or emulates his powerful position. He always appears to be angry and divisive, as well as negative. He blames everyone else and never takes credit for his mistakes. He is a disappointment and disgrace to the position of president of the best and most powerful country in the world, and an embarrassment.

And I was always embarrassed by Bush.....a disgrace to the position president. "You've done a heck of a job Brownie".

[Guest]

I have yet to read or see anything that Obama has done in the last six years, or possibly in his whole life to further the American dream of peace and freedom, or anything else positive about the American way. He has always been negative and demeaning toward the best in society or anyone that doesn't agree with him. He has never shown any indication in six years that he understands or emulates his powerful position. He always appears to be angry and divisive, as well as negative. He blames everyone else and never takes credit for his mistakes. He is a disappointment and disgrace to the position of president of the best and most powerful country in the world, and an embarrassment.
That is a description of the six years of Nixon.

[Guest]

That is a description of the six years of Nixon.

Nice try, but Nixon is not the current president, and not even alive. Obama is the a disgrace, period.

And at least Nixon had accomplishments, and I am not referring to Watergate.

[Guest]

Wow (in the words of the OP), the posters here are just amazingly negative and really an embarassment to our community.

Someone has no reason to be negative about absolutely everything done by this Administration.

When Hillary gets to be President in 2017, these posters will either have a stroke or just spend the next 8 years with heads spinning and writing diatribes on Political Forum.

Are you attempting to be satiric? Hilary president? Ha, ha, ha, ha, good one!

[Guest]

See post #93 --- Says it all.

[Guest]

That is a description of the six years of Nixon.

Nixon could only have wet dreams about what Obie has actually done in terms of breaking the law

[Guest]

Nice try, but Nixon is not the current president, and not even alive. Obama is the a disgrace, period.

And at least Nixon had accomplishments, and I am not referring to Watergate.
Well, he did establish the Environmental Protection Agency and open diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.

[Guest]

Well, he did establish the Environmental Protection Agency and open diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.

And Obama has accomplished.....??? Sorry about putting you on the spot. I can't find anything that he has done either.

[Guest]

Nixon could only have wet dreams about what Obie has actually done in terms of breaking the law

Can you back that up with facts and links?

[Guest]

Can you back that up with facts and links?

Take your pick of sources on the subject of not enforcing illegal immigration laws.
And while you are at it check out the legality of providing benefits to the illegals.

[Guest]

Can you back that up with facts and links?

You want a link to facts on Nixon's dreams? That may be difficult.

[Guest]

Take your pick of sources on the subject of not enforcing illegal immigration laws.
And while you are at it check out the legality of providing benefits to the illegals.

Fast and Furious could be another example.

[Guest]

Can you back that up with facts and links?

You and I both know there are plenty of examples to back this up with.

The most obvious is Obie's use of the IRS to actually, and successfully, target his political enemies. Nixon always lusted for ways to do that but could never pull it off.

You can do your own research ... I don't have time to do it for you but I realize liberals prefer that approach

[Guest]

You and I both know there are plenty of examples to back this up with.

The most obvious is Obie's use of the IRS to actually, and successfully, target his political enemies. Nixon always lusted for ways to do that but could never pull it off.

You can do your own research ... I don't have time to do it for you but I realize liberals prefer that approach

:thumbup:

[Guest]

You and I both know there are plenty of examples to back this up with.


You can do your own research ... I don't have time to do it for you but I realize liberals prefer that approach

I doubt if you could research anything. You are definitely IGNORANT. :boom: :popcorn:

[Guest]

I doubt if you could research anything. You are definitely IGNORANT. :boom: :popcorn:

Normally, I'm adamantly opposed to abortion but, in your case, I have to admit your Mother made a mistake.

[Guest]

Normally, I'm adamantly opposed to abortion but, in your case, I have to admit your Mother made a mistake.

I would almost support abortions, IF we could give postnatal abortions to liberals. Ta Daaaa!!

[Guest]

Like the OP said "WOW!"

[Guest]

Like the OP said "WOW!"

Just joking. I have family that are liberals and I love to kid them. I practice on them before using my material on here. Hey, liberals are brother and sister Americans, and they can't help it is they are misguided. I've come here to present them with a key to salvation. Eventually, all folks grow up and become conservatives. Except some really dense ones like Sanders.

[Guest]

Take your pick of sources on the subject of not enforcing illegal immigration laws.
And while you are at it check out the legality of providing benefits to the illegals.

You check it out. You're the one who made the a statement. There are no benefits being paid to illegals, not social Security and not medicare or Medicaid. You can check that out on factcheck.org. Tell me exactly which laws Obama broke!

[Guest]

You check it out. You're the one who made the a statement. There are no benefits being paid to illegals, not social Security and not medicare or Medicaid. You can check that out on factcheck.org. Tell me exactly which laws Obama broke!

Too many to list. He has also defied the supreme court on several issues, one of them being the ban on drilling oil in the golf. Are you going to deny that?

[Guest]

You check it out. You're the one who made the a statement. There are no benefits being paid to illegals, not social Security and not medicare or Medicaid. You can check that out on factcheck.org. Tell me exactly which laws Obama broke!

And who said "benefits" were limited to the ones the opposition always like to quote.
So fact checking may confirm those listed above. What about the BENEFITS being paid that are not labeled under those programs.
Where is the cost of the food, shelter, clothes, shoes, etc hidden?
Where is the cost burden on the communities that these illegals are inundating for schools, housing, etc.

If ANYBODY thinks there are no benefits being paid to and for and as a result of the illegals tsunami into our country....THEY need to wake up.

At some point one has to face reality regardless what the party line and talking points say!!

[Guest]

And who said "benefits" were limited to the ones the opposition always like to quote.
So fact checking may confirm those listed above. What about the BENEFITS being paid that are not labeled under those programs.
Where is the cost of the food, shelter, clothes, shoes, etc hidden?
Where is the cost burden on the communities that these illegals are inundating for schools, housing, etc.

If ANYBODY thinks there are no benefits being paid to and for and as a result of the illegals tsunami into our country....THEY need to wake up.

At some point one has to face reality regardless what the party line and talking points say!!

Yes, those terrible things like food, shelter, clothing, shoes, etc.

Talk to your priest or minister and see if they agree with you.

[Guest]

Yes, those terrible things like food, shelter, clothing, shoes, etc.

Talk to your priest or minister and see if they agree with you.

The subject is the cost. Too bad you missed it!

[Guest]

Yes, those terrible things like food, shelter, clothing, shoes, etc.

Talk to your priest or minister and see if they agree with you.

You liberals seem to always be so worried about "food, shelter, clothing, shoes, etc." for illegals. But, I have NEVER heard even ONE liberal publicly express ANY concern for the tens of thousands of homeless veterans. Why is that?

[Guest]

Too many to list. He has also defied the supreme court on several issues, one of them being the ban on drilling oil in the golf. Are you going to deny that?

Too many to list!? You can't list one! You said Obama broke laws, name the incidences. You said he defied the Supreme Curt ban on drilling for oil in the gulf. Did he break the law? When you make acusations, you should be able to back them up.

[Guest]

Too many to list!? You can't list one! You said Obama broke laws, name the incidences. You said he defied the Supreme Curt ban on drilling for oil in the gulf. Did he break the law? When you make acusations, you should be able to back them up.

Ok, so that girl that refused to issue marriage licenses in defiance of the court ruling, didn't break any laws. Got it.

Are you going to deny that Obama has been accused of breaking or disregarding laws, and you don't recall even a few of them? Friend, you really need to get your head out of the sand.

[Guest]

The subject is the cost. Too bad you missed it!

Liberals ALWAYS conveniently miss it. And divert when you nail them down. I've seen rats caught in a corner that have nothing on liberals at getting away from the subject.

Illegals in Emergency rooms - No, I am not callous but they wouldn't be there if they weren't here. It costs us by raising our health insurance cost.

Illegals getting free college or resident status college -- I've seen citizens get turned away because classes were too full. Thanks to illegals.

Illegals costing us when they have accidents on the road, not having insurance. Wouldn't have to worry about that if they weren't here.

[Guest]

Ok, so that girl that refused to issue marriage licenses in defiance of the court ruling, didn't break any laws. Got it.

Are you going to deny that Obama has been accused of breaking or disregarding laws, and you don't recall even a few of them? Friend, you really need to get your head out of the sand.

I think you are about three feet too low....:a20:

[Guest]

Ok, so that girl that refused to issue marriage licenses in defiance of the court ruling, didn't break any laws. Got it.

Are you going to deny that Obama has been accused of breaking or disregarding laws, and you don't recall even a few of them? Friend, you really need to get your head out of the sand.

My head is no more in the sand than yours. He's been accused of breaking the law but he hasn't been indicted and doesn't deserve to be and you still haven't told me what laws he has broken.

[Guest]

Liberals ALWAYS conveniently miss it. And divert when you nail them down. I've seen rats caught in a corner that have nothing on liberals at getting away from the subject.

Illegals in Emergency rooms - No, I am not callous but they wouldn't be there if they weren't here. It costs us by raising our health insurance cost.

Illegals getting free college or resident status college -- I've seen citizens get turned away because classes were too full. Thanks to illegals.

Illegals costing us when they have accidents on the road, not having insurance. Wouldn't have to worry about that if they weren't here.

The Conservatives have certainly done their share of diverting on this thread. Can't give me any facts or links on Obama breaking the law. ANd speaking of that, give me some facts and links on illegals getting free college. And as far as accidents on the road, foreign subjects have to take an international driving test to get a license. That doesn't keep them from driving but there are many more Americans whose licenses have been suspended for whatever reasons and they continue to drive. Look at some of the accidents in The Villages that have been caused by drunk drivers who shouldn't have a license; you think that doesn't cost us?!

[Guest]

The Conservatives have certainly done their share of diverting on this thread. Can't give me any facts or links on Obama breaking the law. ANd speaking of that, give me some facts and links on illegals getting free college. And as far as accidents on the road, foreign subjects have to take an international driving test to get a license. That doesn't keep them from driving but there are many more Americans whose licenses have been suspended for whatever reasons and they continue to drive. Look at some of the accidents in The Villages that have been caused by drunk drivers who shouldn't have a license; you think that doesn't cost us?!

Well said. Let's face it. We've all made up our minds. Most of the people on this thread are anti Obama and anti progressive thoughts. Those of us with a more liberal bent have our opinions. So no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

[Guest]

You liberals seem to always be so worried about "food, shelter, clothing, shoes, etc." for illegals. But, I have NEVER heard even ONE liberal publicly express ANY concern for the tens of thousands of homeless veterans. Why is that?

That's easy to answer ... liberals (most of them) range between disliking and hating the military ... thus, why would they want to take care of vets when they can focus on illegal aliens or, most recently, 200,000 Muslims from Syria.

Liberalism is a debilitating mental illness, and over the long haul, results in societal suicide. Allah Akbar, ya'll.

[Guest]

My head is no more in the sand than yours. He's been accused of breaking the law but he hasn't been indicted and doesn't deserve to be and you still haven't told me what laws he has broken.

How very lawyerly sounding.

There is no evidence........

There is no proof........

One of my favorites....we can't confrim or deny.......

When was the last time someone answered the question? Did he or didn't he.....cut the legal and partisan dodge and weave.

[Guest]

The Conservatives have certainly done their share of diverting on this thread. Can't give me any facts or links on Obama breaking the law. ANd speaking of that, give me some facts and links on illegals getting free college. And as far as accidents on the road, foreign subjects have to take an international driving test to get a license. That doesn't keep them from driving but there are many more Americans whose licenses have been suspended for whatever reasons and they continue to drive. Look at some of the accidents in The Villages that have been caused by drunk drivers who shouldn't have a license; you think that doesn't cost us?!

Foreign subjects have to take an international driving test? That is very, very funny and just proves your ignorance. I've had an international drivers license, as well as drivers licenses issued in other countries and never once took a test. As far as illegals are concerned, what in the world are you talking about? You are in left field. And as far as justifying breaking the law by saying "everyone is doing it" that just doesn't fly.

[Guest]

Foreign subjects have to take an international driving test? That is very, very funny and just proves your ignorance. I've had an international drivers license, as well as drivers licenses issued in other countries and never once took a test. As far as illegals are concerned, what in the world are you talking about? You are in left field. And as far as justifying breaking the law by saying "everyone is doing it" that just doesn't fly.

I am not saying that "everyone is doing it", I am saying that there are far more "legals" causing accidents "that cost us". Not sure what you are referring to about "illegals", maybe you should read the jibberish that one of your fellow conservatives posted to which I responded. I'm not surprised that you couldn't figure out what I was talking about, that seems to run as a theme. And when they don't understand, they make it up.

[Guest]

Well said. Let's face it. We've all made up our minds. Most of the people on this thread are anti Obama and anti progressive thoughts. Those of us with a more liberal bent have our opinions. So no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

Thank you!

[Guest]

Well said. Let's face it. We've all made up our minds. Most of the people on this thread are anti Obama and anti progressive thoughts. Those of us with a more liberal bent have our opinions. So no one is going to change anyone else's mind.

Whenever I see the term "progressive" it gives me a chuckle ... it's usually used as a substitute for the term "liberal" (not in your case though) because it helps divert attention from the reality that most "liberal" positions in contemporary society are synonymous with just plain looney. I'll spare you the list ... but it's easy enough to produce.

[Guest]

Whenever I see the term "progressive" it gives me a chuckle ... it's usually used as a substitute for the term "liberal" (not in your case though) because it helps divert attention from the reality that most "liberal" positions in contemporary society are synonymous with just plain looney. I'll spare you the list ... but it's easy enough to produce.

You can't post without getting personal?

[Guest]

Dear Guests:

When Bill Buckley was asked to describe the difference between a Democrat and a Republican he replied "if a man was out in the ocean in danger of drowning a Republican would throw a life preserver half way out so that the man would swim halfway in to grab t while the Democrat would throw it twice the distance from the man's position and he would have to sim out twice the distance to retrieve it.

When Obama won election in 2008 the liberal media bounced on Bush mercilessly. I e-mailed George Bush and said to him that history would be kinder. I have explained that twice Wall Street Journal guest columnist had mentioned that prior to the Iraq invasion Iraqi republican guards replaced over night syrian guards at their border . WMD may not been found but it doesn;t mean they never were Saddam's removal will prove out to be a sound strategy.

In that same vein how ill history treat Fast& Furious, IRS scandal, Benghazi, Iran Agreement, the multitudes of fiats executed by Obama, ObamaCare, Dodd Frank, Obama's handling of the economy etc etc etc?

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I am not saying that "everyone is doing it", I am saying that there are far more "legals" causing accidents "that cost us". Not sure what you are referring to about "illegals", maybe you should read the jibberish that one of your fellow conservatives posted to which I responded. I'm not surprised that you couldn't figure out what I was talking about, that seems to run as a theme. And when they don't understand, they make it up.

You are still lost in your mind. More legals causing accidents, means what? That it's ok for illegals to have drivers licenses? Talk about jibberish! And the part about international drivers licenses test caught you in a lie. I noticed how you diverted from that also. You should probably step back and quit attacking other posters or else come up with some facts to defend your position. If you want to start a thread related to Laws Obama has broken, then do so. A casual statement doesn't warrant your continuous badgering. If someone makes a statement that you don't like,then look it up and dispute the details if you wish. If you can't find evidence for their statement, then ask them to provide links or what not. You are not fooling anyone when you tell folks to prove statements they made that are constantly being discussed in the news. If you wish to say something like "that hasn't been proved" then you may have a legitimate argument.

[Guest]

Whenever I see the term "progressive" it gives me a chuckle ... it's usually used as a substitute for the term "liberal" (not in your case though) because it helps divert attention from the reality that most "liberal" positions in contemporary society are synonymous with just plain looney. I'll spare you the list ... but it's easy enough to produce.

Obviously, you and your fellow "conservatives" do not want to be identified as being Progressive - which means going forward.

The opposite of progressive is Regressive - which means "going backwards".

As I am very happy to be a Progressive, I am just going to be referring to you and your backward thinking ilk as Regressives.

By the way, Regresssives are not relevant in today's world. Get out of the way of progress or get run over!!

[Guest]

Obviously, you and your fellow "conservatives" do not want to be identified as being Progressive - which means going forward.

The opposite of progressive is Regressive - which means "going backwards".

As I am very happy to be a Progressive, I am just going to be referring to you and your backward thinking ilk as Regressives.

By the way, Regresssives are not relevant in today's world. Get out of the way of progress or get run over!!

When a liberal speaks, it is either one way or the opposite. No compromise, no gray area, just either you agree or you are the enemy. Got news for you friend, that is just plain stupid thinking. You totally gave away your liberal stance by saying if you are not going forward, you have to be going backward. that is not true in any way or form. You talk about opposites, like they are a rule. They aren't, but you are too ignorant to understand. That is not an attack, just an observation.

Progressive=
1. happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating; More
gradual, step-by-step, cumulative
"progressive deterioration"(of a disease or ailment) increasing in severity or extent. "progressive liver failure"
(of taxation or a tax) increasing as a proportion of the sum taxed as that sum increases.
"steeply progressive income taxes"

2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

I consider Liberals to be a progressive decline in democracy, ethics and morals. Unlike you, I don't see your progressiveness as a positive thing.

Conservative = holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

I've looked at several definitions of conservative and have yet to see it associated with being "regressive." (spelled properly, I believe).

But, if you are listening to your messiah in D.C. then its either a poor/bad agreement or bill, or a fight or war. One extreme or the other extreme. NO compromise.

So, liberals are just spoiled children, requiring their way or no way. Their way or the opposite way.

[Guest]

Obviously, you and your fellow "conservatives" do not want to be identified as being Progressive - which means going forward.

The opposite of progressive is Regressive - which means "going backwards".

As I am very happy to be a Progressive, I am just going to be referring to you and your backward thinking ilk as Regressives.

By the way, Regresssives are not relevant in today's world. Get out of the way of progress or get run over!!

Liberal supporters continue to re-define anything to make it fit their position or agenda.

pro·gres·sive
prəˈɡresiv/
adjective
adjective: progressive

1.
happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
"a progressive decline in popularity"
synonyms: continuing, continuous, increasing, growing, developing, ongoing, accelerating, escalating; More
gradual, step-by-step, cumulative
"progressive deterioration"
(of a disease or ailment) increasing in severity or extent.
"progressive liver failure"
(of taxation or a tax) increasing as a proportion of the sum taxed as that sum increases.
"steeply progressive income taxes"
(of a card game or dance) involving a series of sections for which participants successively change place or relative position.
archaic
engaging in or constituting forward motion.
2.
(of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
"a relatively progressive governor"
favoring or promoting change or innovation.
"a progressive art school"
synonyms: modern, liberal, advanced, forward-thinking, enlightened, enterprising, innovative, pioneering, dynamic, bold, avant-garde, reforming, reformist, radical; informalgo-ahead
"progressive views"
antonyms: conservative, reactionary
relating to or denoting a style of rock music popular especially in the 1980s and characterized by classical influences, the use of keyboard instruments, and lengthy compositions.
3.
Grammar
denoting an aspect or tense of a verb that expresses an action in progress, e.g., am writing, was writing.

noun
noun: progressive; plural noun: progressives; noun: progressive proof; plural noun: progressive proofs

1.
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian
"he is very much a progressive"
2.
Grammar
a progressive tense or aspect.
"the present progressive"

I have underscored the part of the definition that applies to you and those like you.

Oh by the way it does not mean moving forward....that is poetic liscence to suit the subject (actually this is just bait to give some a bone to knaw upon).

[Guest]

Obviously, you and your fellow "conservatives" do not want to be identified as being Progressive - which means going forward.

The opposite of progressive is Regressive - which means "going backwards".

As I am very happy to be a Progressive, I am just going to be referring to you and your backward thinking ilk as Regressives.

By the way, Regresssives are not relevant in today's world. Get out of the way of progress or get run over!!

Interesting. Cancer is also progressive...something for you to look forward to, I guess.

[Guest]

Obviously, you and your fellow "conservatives" do not want to be identified as being Progressive - which means going forward.

The opposite of progressive is Regressive - which means "going backwards".

As I am very happy to be a Progressive, I am just going to be referring to you and your backward thinking ilk as Regressives.

By the way, Regresssives are not relevant in today's world. Get out of the way of progress or get run over!!

The one common thread through all posts like this is the repitition. Never a dialogue. Just pull the string and let the recording play again and again and again and.................
As interactive as a looped tape recording.

[Guest]

The one common thread through all posts like this is the repitition. Never a dialogue. Just pull the string and let the recording play again and again and again and.................
As interactive as a looped tape recording.

You are quite right. Trying to educate the ignorant is very trying. They parrot Huffington Post and think they are being progressive. They associate radical with being progressive/new. They rename an old idea to make them believe it is something new and progressive. What a misuse of educational funding.

They:
Rename socialism to liberalism
Rename liberalism to progressive
Abnormal to normal
deviant to accepted
Male to female
gender to non-gender specific
He and She to IT
Bible to book of fairy tales

And God to government

[Guest]

Obviously, you and your fellow "conservatives" do not want to be identified as being Progressive - which means going forward.

The opposite of progressive is Regressive - which means "going backwards".

As I am very happy to be a Progressive, I am just going to be referring to you and your backward thinking ilk as Regressives.

By the way, Regresssives are not relevant in today's world. Get out of the way of progress or get run over!!

You continue to reliably miss the point ... "progressive" as you use it is anything but that ... and nothing more than a nicer sounding word than "liberal" which, as we all increasingly realize, reflects a debilitating mental illness which puts you guys into truly looney policy positions. Sigh ... you're hopeless.

[Guest]

You continue to reliably miss the point ... "progressive" as you use it is anything but that ... and nothing more than a nicer sounding word than "liberal" which, as we all increasingly realize, reflects a debilitating mental illness which puts you guys into truly looney policy positions. Sigh ... you're hopeless.

:agree: absolutely. But, what are you going to do? They don't learn until they grow up. By then, it may be too late for them. The children of today are going to be the losers of tomorrow. What a shame. Anyone that hasn't learned by the time they reach our age, are mentally impaired. I didn't want to use the forbidden term, banned by PC -- retarded.

[Guest]

You are quite right. Trying to educate the ignorant is very trying. They parrot Huffington Post and think they are being progressive. They associate radical with being progressive/new. They rename an old idea to make them believe it is something new and progressive. What a misuse of educational funding.

They:
Rename socialism to liberalism
Rename liberalism to progressive
Abnormal to normal
deviant to accepted
Male to female
gender to non-gender specific
He and She to IT
Bible to book of fairy tales

And God to government

That pretty much sums it up.

The only thing to add ... common sense becomes visibly deranged looneyism

[Guest]

You continue to reliably miss the point ... "progressive" as you use it is anything but that ... and nothing more than a nicer sounding word than "liberal" which, as we all increasingly realize, reflects a debilitating mental illness which puts you guys into truly looney policy positions. Sigh ... you're hopeless.

Y usted, estupido.

[Guest]

Y usted, estupido.

Si quieres participar en este foro politico por favor, aprender a hablar ingles. Imbecile.

[Guest]

Si quieres participar en este foro politico por favor, aprender a hablar ingles. Imbecile.

You are a lot nicer than me. I would not have been so civil in my response with my limited Spanish. My Spanish vulgarity is somewhat limited.