And more downgrading USA by Obama

[Guest]

He is openly, stupidly, self serving critical of the USA at every chance he gets.

In his ignorance he thinks he is increasing the value of his personal stock by criticizing and appologizing for America's actions.

On this one what gives him the right to judge what was done or not done by America's leaders back then.

Does the PREACHER think he is so empowered to judge the past.

He exemplifies and confirms why he does nothing but talk. Leaves him room for deniability and the possibility of making an error.

In his last days he is making a bigger fool of himself everytime he opens his mouth.

What we know for sure? America will be much better of without him and his mouth in office.

Obama: US slow to speak out for human rights in Argentina - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-03-24/obama-to-mourn-argentina-coup-victims-as-us-ponders-its-role)

[Guest]

Lets be honest here you all HATEhim so it would not matter what he says!!!

You hate his wife and his children the only person in his family you haven't attacked his in mother-in-law which surprises me because she is living in the White House and you are paying for that!!!

[Guest]

Lets be honest here you all HATEhim so it would not matter what he says!!!

You hate his wife and his children the only person in his family you haven't attacked his in mother-in-law which surprises me because she is living in the White House and you are paying for that!!!

Yes, the old standby left wing comment when unable to figure things out, "HATE." You can dislike Obama's policies and yet the little lefties will declare/accuse you of HATING. If you don't agree with gay marriage your are hateful and a bigot Friend, you are a retard.

And as far as his mother-in-law living in the White House, at least she isn't on welfare. The house has plenty of rooms. Who cares? You brought it up, seeking a reaction. Hope that satisfies you. And I believe you are reading into the OP's comment and taking quite a bit of leeway by accusing him of hating Obama's family. Unless of course, you know him. Maybe you figure that since someone with the Guest moniker said something derogatory about Obama's family, you figured everyone said it?

I believe you should seek help for your problem. They have medications that will help.

[Guest]

Lets be honest here you all HATEhim so it would not matter what he says!!!

You hate his wife and his children the only person in his family you haven't attacked his in mother-in-law which surprises me because she is living in the White House and you are paying for that!!!

NO! You stand corrected!

Stop twisting and turning and positioning others comments to suit your cause whatever it is.
Do you think you accomplish anything by opening with "...let's be honest..." positioning that anything said was not honest.

Your BS ongoing about wife, kids, dogs and whatever else you could scoop up.

Where is the honesty in your position?

Is it OK with you that Obama continues to put down America as often as he does?
Is it OK with you that he appologizes for the actions of America past to our enemies?

Stay on the subject at hand, look in the mirror and then talk honestly ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. and not some made up BS. Maybe you are trying too hard to emulate Obama instead of being a stand up for America American!!!

[Guest]

What I really do HATE is when others twist someone elses post to suit their BS agenda.

[Guest]

I don't hate Obama, but I don't like him. NO real American could, considering how he is always apologizing for America. He should be very proud, considering how far he has come with the help of so many Americans that have helped him along the way. Nothing like biting the hand that literally feeds him.

[Guest]

NO! You stand corrected!

Stop twisting and turning and positioning others comments to suit your cause whatever it is.
Do you think you accomplish anything by opening with "...let's be honest..." positioning that anything said was not honest.

Your BS ongoing about wife, kids, dogs and whatever else you could scoop up.

Where is the honesty in your position?

Is it OK with you that Obama continues to put down America as often as he does?
Is it OK with you that he appologizes for the actions of America past to our enemies?

Stay on the subject at hand, look in the mirror and then talk honestly ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. and not some made up BS. Maybe you are trying too hard to emulate Obama instead of being a stand up for America American!!!

What enemies has he apologized to? Argentina is our enemy?

He just recently visited Cuba. Did he apologize to the Cuban people for our actions?

Our past enemies include China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Vietnam has he has apologized to them for our actions. I guess he would have apologized to Japanese interment victims, if they already hadn't been apologized to already.

Has he apologized to Muslims in all the Middle East, and African countries that have been hurt by our invasion of Iraq, and Afgan? I guess that he has the rest of the year to correct that mistake. He will apologize in the lame duck session.

When you want better relations with a country like Argentina, that wasn't, and isn't an enemy, why not apologize for a sin of the past? We are not blameless for what the Argentina dictator did in the years 1976 thru 1983.

[Guest]

What enemies has he apologized to? Argentina is our enemy?

He just recently visited Cuba. Did he apologize to the Cuban people for our actions?

Our past enemies include China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Vietnam has he has apologized to them for our actions. I guess he would have apologized to Japanese interment victims, if they already hadn't been apologized to already.

Has he apologized to Muslims in all the Middle East, and African countries that have been hurt by our invasion of Iraq, and Afgan? I guess that he has the rest of the year to correct that mistake. He will apologize in the lame duck session.

When you want better relations with a country like Argentina, that wasn't, and isn't an enemy, why not apologize for a sin of the past? We are not blameless for what the Argentina dictator did in the years 1976 thru 1983.

Yes, he did. If you were interested enough in current events, you would know how many times he has apologized to other countries, INCLUDING Muslim countries. Remember, Google is your friend.

[Guest]

And don't forget how Global Warming causes terrorism and is more important than terrorist attacks.

[Guest]

I don't hate Obama, but I don't like him. NO real American could, considering how he is always apologizing for America. He should be very proud, considering how far he has come with the help of so many Americans that have helped him along the way. Nothing like biting the hand that literally feeds him.

I am a real American. I have given 37 years to this country, i think this President has done a great job taking this country out of a near depression and rebuilding this economy without any help at all from the GOP.

[Guest]

And don't forget how Global Warming causes terrorism and is more important than terrorist attacks.

Hell i am more worried about a wacko with a gun in this country or a drunk driving a car than i am of any terrorist. Unlike the GOP voters I refuse to live in fear.

[Guest]

What enemies has he apologized to? Argentina is our enemy?

He just recently visited Cuba. Did he apologize to the Cuban people for our actions?

Our past enemies include China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Vietnam has he has apologized to them for our actions. I guess he would have apologized to Japanese interment victims, if they already hadn't been apologized to already.

Has he apologized to Muslims in all the Middle East, and African countries that have been hurt by our invasion of Iraq, and Afgan? I guess that he has the rest of the year to correct that mistake. He will apologize in the lame duck session.

When you want better relations with a country like Argentina, that wasn't, and isn't an enemy, why not apologize for a sin of the past? We are not blameless for what the Argentina dictator did in the years 1976 thru 1983.

You are so party brainwashed and defensive you totally and completely missed the :censored: point!

[Guest]

I am a real American. I have given 37 years to this country, i think this President has done a great job taking this country out of a near depression and rebuilding this economy without any help at all from the GOP.

What the hell is "a real American"? Somebody who believes the propaganda BS? Someone willing to die for bankers profits?

We're $10 TRILLION more in debt, that's the "recovery", over trillion a year. MORE than doubled since Bush, it's a $19 trillion debt now.

Most of you people are delusional. The ignorant rabble...

[Guest]

Hell i am more worried about a wacko with a gun in this country or a drunk driving a car than i am of any terrorist. Unlike the GOP voters I refuse to live in fear.

NOpe, you do not live in fear. Thank your military for that. They are the ones on the front line. You don't live in fear because you are PROTECTED. Hope you are grateful for a strong military, even with a weak president.

[Guest]

You are so party brainwashed and defensive you totally and completely missed the :censored: point!

:agree:

[Guest]

I am a real American. I have given 37 years to this country, i think this President has done a great job taking this country out of a near depression and rebuilding this economy without any help at all from the GOP.

Well, you prove that "ignorance is bliss." Slowest recovery from a recession or depression in history. No thanks to Obama, because he did everything he could think of to slow it's recovery. Record number of families on food stamps, still. Lower minority EMPLOYMENT, still. Highest amount of population out of work force since the Great Depression. I could go on about this so-called success story you blather about, but it would be pointless because you would still deny it, even if it smacked you in the face. "Ignorance is bliss."

[Guest]

Well, you prove that "ignorance is bliss." Slowest recovery from a recession or depression in history. No thanks to Obama, because he did everything he could think of to slow it's recovery. Record number of families on food stamps, still. Lower minority EMPLOYMENT, still. Highest amount of population out of work force since the Great Depression. I could go on about this so-called success story you blather about, but it would be pointless because you would still deny it, even if it smacked you in the face. "Ignorance is bliss."

Imagine that, a GOP wacko who is worrying about minority employment ...

Talk all you want ... complain all you want ... but your basically stating is the country has recovered but not as much as it should have. Which is totally subjective because you can't go back and put someone else in the job to actually see what would have happened. Every program that Obama tried to get through was either stopped by the GOP welfare senators, or cut back miserably. You have all the blame for your president but none for the actual money spenders, Congress.

2007-2008 this country was in dire straights. 8 years of Bush, fighting wars off the books, Obama takes over and all of a sudden it's his fault.

So cry all you want about Obama not doing enough for you. The fact is this country is in much better shape today than when he took office.

[Guest]

Imagine that, a GOP wacko who is worrying about minority employment ...

Talk all you want ... complain all you want ... but your basically stating is the country has recovered but not as much as it should have. Which is totally subjective because you can't go back and put someone else in the job to actually see what would have happened. Every program that Obama tried to get through was either stopped by the GOP welfare senators, or cut back miserably. You have all the blame for your president but none for the actual money spenders, Congress.

2007-2008 this country was in dire straights. 8 years of Bush, fighting wars off the books, Obama takes over and all of a sudden it's his fault.

So cry all you want about Obama not doing enough for you. The fact is this country is in much better shape today than when he took office.
You nailed it.
We are a little better off. The top 1/10 of 1% have really done well the last 7 years.

[Guest]

The fact is this country is in much better shape today than when he took office.

NO...it is NOT better. We added $10 trillion of debt. $30,000 for EVERY man woman AND child. It was a FAKE recovery fueled by debt. Like having a job, getting fired, and living off of credit cards and loans. What IS better? Gay people can marry? Children have "safe spaces" in colleges?

[Guest]

Imagine that, a GOP wacko who is worrying about minority employment ...

Talk all you want ... complain all you want ... but your basically stating is the country has recovered but not as much as it should have. Which is totally subjective because you can't go back and put someone else in the job to actually see what would have happened. Every program that Obama tried to get through was either stopped by the GOP welfare senators, or cut back miserably. You have all the blame for your president but none for the actual money spenders, Congress.

2007-2008 this country was in dire straights. 8 years of Bush, fighting wars off the books, Obama takes over and all of a sudden it's his fault.

So cry all you want about Obama not doing enough for you. The fact is this country is in much better shape today than when he took office.

You're wrong. You can compare historical notes. You are probably the only one that would deny the facts. And the facts remain that this country's economy is down and we are being told obvious lies. Unemployment lies, for one. If half the work force quit looking for jobs, then you have an employment problem. You don't say Obama has the best unemployment figures in years. That doesn't compute. If you have 45 million families on food stamps, that doesn't show a great economy. If you have a negative GDP growth, that's not something to celebrate. When you have the lowest minority employment rate in many years, you don't applaud. Just because Obummer goes on TV and tells you that everything is peachy, you might as well believe that Clinton didn't transmit gov emails over an unsecured private Internet server. You liberals are very naive and that's not healthy.
History shows that almost any other president would have done better for an economic recovery. But, you go ahead and kiss Obummer's butt, because he will not be able to do any more damage in a few more months.

[Guest]

Imagine that, a GOP wacko who is worrying about minority employment ...

Talk all you want ... complain all you want ... but your basically stating is the country has recovered but not as much as it should have. Which is totally subjective because you can't go back and put someone else in the job to actually see what would have happened. Every program that Obama tried to get through was either stopped by the GOP welfare senators, or cut back miserably. You have all the blame for your president but none for the actual money spenders, Congress.

2007-2008 this country was in dire straights. 8 years of Bush, fighting wars off the books, Obama takes over and all of a sudden it's his fault.

So cry all you want about Obama not doing enough for you. The fact is this country is in much better shape today than when he took office.

Interesting that you say that, probably with a naive straight face. The GOP is responsible for doing more for minorities than the party of slavery. Which party voted for all the civil rights laws and which did not? Google is your friend. And there are more ways than one for one to be a slave to a higher power. The liberals are doing their best to keep the minority down.

[Guest]

Yes, he did. If you were interested enough in current events, you would know how many times he has apologized to other countries, INCLUDING Muslim countries. Remember, Google is your friend.

You are right. Google is my friend. This is what my friend told me.
CNN Fact Check: Obama went on an apology tour, Romney and others say - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-apology-tour/index.html)

In this political climate, everything is twisted to fit the narrative the person wants others to believe. If you don't think that pure hate has nothing to do how people including the press treat Obama, you are kidding yourself.

[Guest]

I'm glad you have a friend in Google. I do too. Take a look at this. It may help you understand how the names of the party's came about.
v=DTe_Kv1CvyE

[Guest]

You're wrong. You can compare historical notes. You are probably the only one that would deny the facts. And the facts remain that this country's economy is down and we are being told obvious lies. Unemployment lies, for one. If half the work force quit looking for jobs, then you have an employment problem. You don't say Obama has the best unemployment figures in years. That doesn't compute. If you have 45 million families on food stamps, that doesn't show a great economy. If you have a negative GDP growth, that's not something to celebrate. When you have the lowest minority employment rate in many years, you don't applaud. Just because Obummer goes on TV and tells you that everything is peachy, you might as well believe that Clinton didn't transmit gov emails over an unsecured private Internet server. You liberals are very naive and that's not healthy.
History shows that almost any other president would have done better for an economic recovery. But, you go ahead and kiss Obummer's butt, because he will not be able to do any more damage in a few more months.

Half the work force has stopped looking for work. The total work force is 156 million. The total US population is 323 million. 156 x 2 = 312 million.
So, children of school age and under, and retired people in the US makes up the difference 11 million. Don't you think that half is just a little high?

45 million people on food stamps maybe the result of the minimum wage being too low. With many production jobs leaving the US, we are a service country. Many of the service jobs pay next to nothing. Wal-Mart was receiving billions of dollars from the US by underpaying their employees. Their employees received the money from the government. However, if Wal-Mart had paid them a living wage, they wouldn't need food stamps. Wal-Mart said that they will be paying their employees more, because light was shed on them, and they don't want their customers going elsewhere.

Why do you think that they called the Great Recession? No other president had to deal with a recession like the one he was handed. To make matters worse, the Republican obstructed everything Obama wanted to do from day one of his presidency. To place all the blame on Obama is a typical right wing attempt to change history. It just won't fly.

[Guest]

You are right. Google is my friend. This is what my friend told me.
CNN Fact Check: Obama went on an apology tour, Romney and others say - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/fact-check-apology-tour/index.html)

In this political climate, everything is twisted to fit the narrative the person wants others to believe. If you don't think that pure hate has nothing to do how people including the press treat Obama, you are kidding yourself.
Excellent article that supports your opinion. I would be interesting to read an article that supports the opposite opinion. Google is everyone's friend. Let's see how others use it to support their view.

[Guest]

:agree:I am a real American. I have given 37 years to this country, i think this President has done a great job taking this country out of a near depression and rebuilding this economy without any help at all from the GOP.

[Guest]

What the hell is "a real American"? Somebody who believes the propaganda BS? Someone willing to die for bankers profits?

We're $10 TRILLION more in debt, that's the "recovery", over trillion a year. MORE than doubled since Bush, it's a $19 trillion debt now.

Most of you people are delusional. The ignorant rabble...

Didn't the republican congress promise to fix that? What a whiner.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1204222]Half the work force has stopped looking for work. The total work force is 156 million. The total US population is 323 million. 156 x 2 = 312 million.
So, children of school age and under, and retired people in the US makes up the difference 11 million. Don't you think that half is just a little high?
QUOTE]

Look, I am a far left progressive, in the Elizabeth Warren wing, but your statement that 1/2 the work force has stopped looking is ridiculous and making feces up doesn't help our side look reasonable. The bureau of labor statistics actually studies these things so you don't have to guess. It should be obvious that not every American is seeking employment. There are plenty of homes with a stay at home parent. Members of the military are not counted as employed. Etc. etc.

There are 60 million Americans on Social Security There are 70 million under age 18, so that gives you 130 million right off the top.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Persons under age 18, 2015-2060 (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/qa01101.asp)

Here is the data, and if you are really interested in how the data is collected the BLS website is very thorough
Employment Situation Summary (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

[Guest]

Wal-Mart was receiving billions of dollars from the US by underpaying their employees. Their employees received the money from the government. However, if Wal-Mart had paid them a living wage, they wouldn't need food stamps. Wal-Mart said that they will be paying their employees more, because light was shed on them, and they don't want their customers going elsewhere.

v=QyuemHxo7N8

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1204222]
Here is the data, and if you are really interested in how the data is collected the BLS website is very thorough
Employment Situation Summary (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)
I was interested.
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 242,000 in February, and the
unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment gains occurred in health care and social
assistance, retail trade, food services and drinking places, and private
educational services. Job losses continued in mining.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1204245]
I was interested.
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 242,000 in February, and the
unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment gains occurred in health care and social
assistance, retail trade, food services and drinking places, and private
educational services.
Among the marginally attached, there were 599,000 discouraged workers in
February, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.2 million
persons marginally attached to the labor force in February had not searched
for work for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.
(See table A-16.)

Job losses continued in mining.

[Guest]

He is openly, stupidly, self serving critical of the USA at every chance he gets.

In his ignorance he thinks he is increasing the value of his personal stock by criticizing and appologizing for America's actions.

On this one what gives him the right to judge what was done or not done by America's leaders back then.

Does the PREACHER think he is so empowered to judge the past.

He exemplifies and confirms why he does nothing but talk. Leaves him room for deniability and the possibility of making an error.

In his last days he is making a bigger fool of himself everytime he opens his mouth.

What we know for sure? America will be much better of without him and his mouth in office.

Obama: US slow to speak out for human rights in Argentina - US News (http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-03-24/obama-to-mourn-argentina-coup-victims-as-us-ponders-its-role)

No, my Tea Bag friend, it is YOU that CONTINUES to make a fool of yourself every time you post.

What are you going to do WHEN Hillary wins in November? Canada does not want Cruz or you!

[Guest]

Half the work force has stopped looking for work. The total work force is 156 million. The total US population is 323 million. 156 x 2 = 312 million.
So, children of school age and under, and retired people in the US makes up the difference 11 million. Don't you think that half is just a little high?

45 million people on food stamps maybe the result of the minimum wage being too low. With many production jobs leaving the US, we are a service country. Many of the service jobs pay next to nothing. Wal-Mart was receiving billions of dollars from the US by underpaying their employees. Their employees received the money from the government. However, if Wal-Mart had paid them a living wage, they wouldn't need food stamps. Wal-Mart said that they will be paying their employees more, because light was shed on them, and they don't want their customers going elsewhere.

Why do you think that they called the Great Recession? No other president had to deal with a recession like the one he was handed. To make matters worse, the Republican obstructed everything Obama wanted to do from day one of his presidency. To place all the blame on Obama is a typical right wing attempt to change history. It just won't fly.

According to statista.com, In Feb 2016 there were only 121.76 million full-time workers in the U.S. I stand corrected, the employed adults equal about 62% of the total. That means that about 48% of eligible adults are not working. I believe that sometime between last year at this time and now, our labor force has been at a 38 year low. Since statistics are sketchy this year so far, I am not sure if we still fit the historical 38 year low.

As for your statement that no other president has had to deal with a recession like this one he was handed, I believe you will find that there have been plenty of recessions that other presidents have had to endure. And remember, Obama was the one that knew what he was asking for when he ran, and Obama is the one that assured everyone that he knew what he was doing. But, he wouldn't listen to his economic advisors, even firing them. NO, he has been responsible for the longest recession OR Depression recovery in history. Blaming Republicans for obstruction is just immature. You know as well as I do that there was NOTHING they could do in the first two years to hinder ANYTHING he wished to do. His own party may have gotten in his way, but not the Republicans. Nope, instead they insisted on forcing Obamacare through, after everyone warned them and the voters did not want it. Proof was the resulting historical congressional massacre on election day.

I believe that the point was the high rate of those that are not in the work force in comparison with employed. Please don't be insulting by suggesting that if minimum wages were higher that would change anything. Min wages are for school kids, retirees and those working a second part-time job. Min wages were never meant for full-time employment.

[Guest]

No, my Tea Bag friend, it is YOU that CONTINUES to make a fool of yourself every time you post.

What are you going to do WHEN Hillary wins in November? Canada does not want Cruz or you!

Hillary will look pretty funny serving behind bars. Then again, she will save travel expenses.

[Guest]

equal about 62% of the total. That means that about 48% of eligible adults are not working.
I didn't get very far in your post before I was confused.
62% plus 48% = 110%?

[Guest]

No, my Tea Bag friend, it is YOU that CONTINUES to make a fool of yourself every time you post.

What are you going to do WHEN Hillary wins in November? Canada does not want Cruz or you!

What will you do my Tea BAGEE friend, WHEN she looses?

[Guest]

What will you do my Tea BAGEE friend, WHEN she looses?
Are there 3 people thinking the other 2 are foolish in this dispute?
Hillary supporter
Hillary hater
Tea ****** friend that neither one likes

[Guest]

I didn't get very far in your post before I was confused.
62% plus 48% = 110%?

Probably a type-o. Bet it was supposed to be 38%.

[Guest]

Percentage of Employed Americans. Lowest since the '70s

[Guest]

That graph was from Politifact.com on Jan 2016. Forgot to add that info.

[Guest]

Probably a type-o. Bet it was supposed to be 38%.I don't think it was.

[Guest]

Yes, he did. If you were interested enough in current events, you would know how many times he has apologized to other countries, INCLUDING Muslim countries. Remember, Google is your friend.
More or less he said we made mistakes along with many others. He never apologized. Ask your friend and post an apology.

[Guest]

Percentage of Employed Americans. Lowest since the '70s
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-us-has-lowest-percentage-americans-w/

For the entire story.

[Guest]

More or less he said we made mistakes along with many others. He never apologized. Ask your friend and post an apology.

I didn't get my accusation from a friend. That's not an apology? Admitting that you are wrong?

Speech by President Obama, Rhenus Sports Arena, Strasbourg, France, April 3, 2009.[1]

So we must be honest with ourselves. In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.
===========
President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.[2]

My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that.
========
resident Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.[3]

All of us must now renew the common stake that we have in one another. I know that promises of partnership have gone unfulfilled in the past, and that trust has to be earned over time. While the United States has done much to promote peace and prosperity in the hemisphere, we have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations; there is simply engagement based on mutual respect and common interests and shared values. So I'm here to launch a new chapter of engagement that will be sustained throughout my administration.

The United States will be willing to acknowledge past errors where those errors have been made.
==========
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[5]

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of fear, too many of us--Democrats and Republicans, politicians, journalists, and citizens--fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach--one that rejected torture and one that recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
=================
Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.[7]

Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation. This work is never over. That's why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. That's why we prohibited--without exception or equivocation--the use of torture. All of us have to change. And sometimes change is hard.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future.
==========
Opinion editorial by President Obama: "Choosing a Better Future in the Americas," April 16, 2009.[8]

Too often, the United States has not pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors. We have been too easily distracted by other priorities, and have failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas. My Administration is committed to the promise of a new day. We will renew and sustain a broader partnership between the United States and the hemisphere on behalf of our common prosperity and our common security.
===========
Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009.[9] The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.
=============
President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.[10]

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

[Guest]

- October 2010. Gibbs apologizes for American experiments on Guatemalans in the 1940s. "This is — it’s tragic, and the United States, by all means, apologizes to all those that were impacted by this," Gibbs said at a news conference. "The president is slated to call the leader of Guatemala later today and personally express that apology."

- February 2012. In a letter to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Obama apologizes for the burning of Korans by U.S. troops.

- May 2013. Obama apologizes and says Americans have a right to be angry after revelations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofits several years previously.

- October 2013. Obama is forced to apologize to German Chancellor Angela Merkel after it is revealed that the NSA was tapping her cellphone.

- November 2013. Obama apologizes to people who had their health insurance canceled. "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," he said.

- November 2013. The president apologizes to Democrats who have come under fire for supporting Obamacare. "I feel deeply responsible," he said, "for making it harder for them rather than easier for them to continue to promote the core values that I think led them to support this thing in the first place, which is, in this country, as wealthy as we are, everybody should be able to have the security of affordable health care."

- December 2013. Obama apologizes for the Obamacare rollout in broad strokes. "I have acknowledged more than once that we didn’t roll out parts of this law as well as we should have," he said.

The president has also apologized to a number of individuals.

- He apologized for the firing of one-time USDA employee Shirley Sherrod early in his first term.

- In April 2013, Obama apologized to California Attorney General Kamala Harris after commenting on her appearance.

- Last February, he apologized to an art historian after casually insulting art history degrees.

- A few weeks ago, he apologized to an engaged couple for displacing their wedding so he could play golf.

Nor is it only the president who's had to say he's sorry.

- Earnest notes that Vice President Biden called to apologize to the leaders of Turkey and the United Arab Emirates for criticizing their relationship with Syria. Biden, Earnest said, "wishes that he had said it a little bit differently."

- White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer apologized to conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer in July 2012 for misrepresenting the status of a bust of Winston Churchill.

- Last fall, the first lady apologized for mispronouncing the name of Iowa Senate candidate Bruce "Bailey" Braley.

[Guest]

Google is your friend.

That's not an apology? Admitting that you are wrong?

I don't think admitting partial guilt means that you apologized.

In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

I'm going to stop here because we will never agree. America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. Unless he ends the statement by saying we apologize than an apology has not been given.

I'll respect you and the idea that you think it is implied.

[Guest]

This is from Wikipedia

"Mistakes were made"
The expression "mistakes were made" is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by using the passive voice. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. An active voice construction would be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.
The New York Times has called the phrase a "classic Washington linguistic construct." Political consultant William Schneider suggested that this usage be referred to as the "past exonerative" tense,[7] and commentator William Safire has defined the phrase as "[a] passive-evasive way of acknowledging error while distancing the speaker from responsibility for it".[8] A commentator at NPR declared this expression to be "the king of non-apologies".[9] While perhaps most famous in politics, the phrase has also been used in business, sports, and entertainment.


I see it as a diplomatic way of saving face and building bridges not walls as the Pope has asked us to do. I'm hopeful.

[Guest]

Google is your friend.

That's not an apology? Admitting that you are wrong?

I don't think admitting partial guilt means that you apologized.

In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

I'm going to stop here because we will never agree. America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. Unless he ends the statement by saying we apologize than an apology has not been given.

I'll respect you and the idea that you think it is implied.

What follows is the definition [Wikipedia- another friend] of a non-apology. There different types of non-apologies including a"mistakes were made" type of non-apology.

[Guest]

He apologized by telling everyone that we were wrong. He can speak for himself, but not for America. He is a scumbag and even the scumbag Hillary wouldn't go around acting like a weak wimp like that poor excuse for a leader. Leading from behind! Nothing but a weakling. If you don't thing he was apologizing, then you are the only one in America that thinks that way.

[Guest]

He apologized by telling everyone that we were wrong. He can speak for himself, but not for America. He is a scumbag and even the scumbag Hillary wouldn't go around acting like a weak wimp like that poor excuse for a leader. Leading from behind! Nothing but a weakling. If you don't thing he was apologizing, then you are the only one in America that thinks that way.

And that is who he speaks for 98.79584% of the time!!

He and his wife are black activists in fantasy land.

[Guest]

Have you ever seen his approval rating on a daily basis?
Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history)

How can you say without any evidence or proof that Obama only speaks for himself? You can say you are wrong and it will not be apology. Or would it?

[Guest]

Have you ever seen his approval rating on a daily basis?
Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports™ (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history)

How can you say without any evidence or proof that Obama only speaks for himself? You can say you are wrong and it will not be apology. Or would it?

Over the years it is abundantly clear just by observing and listening to when and how he uses the words I, me or mine in his speeches. When there is credit to be taken or a bow (earned or not does not matter) he never takes the high ground and refers to America or the USA or the miltary....it is ALWAYS.....I have taken....I have done.....I have asked.....I gave the order.....

He has no understanding what so ever that he would get credit for the successes of America or USA or the military without having to interject himself into the accolade. A true leader knows and speaks accordingly. And a wanna be community organizer only knows self promotion.....you know a POLITICIAN.

[Guest]

Over the years it is abundantly clear just by observing and listening to when and how he uses the words I, me or mine in his speeches. When there is credit to be taken or a bow (earned or not does not matter) he never takes the high ground and refers to America or the USA or the miltary....it is ALWAYS.....I have taken....I have done.....I have asked.....I gave the order.....

He has no understanding what so ever that he would get credit for the successes of America or USA or the military without having to interject himself into the accolade. A true leader knows and speaks accordingly. And a wanna be community organizer only knows self promotion.....you know a POLITICIAN.What?

[Guest]

Over the years it is abundantly clear just by observing and listening to when and how he uses the words I, me or mine in his speeches. When there is credit to be taken or a bow (earned or not does not matter) he never takes the high ground and refers to America or the USA or the miltary....it is ALWAYS.....I have taken....I have done.....I have asked.....I gave the order.....

He has no understanding what so ever that he would get credit for the successes of America or USA or the military without having to interject himself into the accolade. A true leader knows and speaks accordingly. And a wanna be community organizer only knows self promotion.....you know a POLITICIAN.

Obama has never had any type of leadership training, so he can't be expected to know how to lead. Some folks are natural leaders, but he is not one of them. He still doesn't understand that his "leading from behind" is not considered anything more than FOLLOWING. Obama has been groomed and led his whole life, so other than being a wannabe comedian, he is a total flop.

You are correct to say that it is obvious that he has no clue when he uses the I, me, my for everything that occurs. Most leaders will say We did this, or Our. They make it evident that it was a team effort, not a sole individual that accomplished something. He is no leader. And he barely fills the Manager role.

[Guest]

Obama has never had any type of leadership training, so he can't be expected to know how to lead. Some folks are natural leaders, but he is not one of them. He still doesn't understand that his "leading from behind" is not considered anything more than FOLLOWING. Obama has been groomed and led his whole life, so other than being a wannabe comedian, he is a total flop.

You are correct to say that it is obvious that he has no clue when he uses the I, me, my for everything that occurs. Most leaders will say We did this, or Our. They make it evident that it was a team effort, not a sole individual that accomplished something. He is no leader. And he barely fills the Manager role.

There is general theme on this board. It is make statements like Obama never uses the word "we", and always I me, but never back them up with actual video to support your comments.

In his last state of the Union address, he gave the items that he wanted to work on in his last year of presidency. I will work with Congress to get them done. He didn't say that he was going to do them by himself. "work with".

[Guest]

There is general theme on this board. It is make statements like Obama never uses the word "we", and always I me, but never back them up with actual video to support your comments.

In his last state of the Union address, he gave the items that he wanted to work on in his last year of presidency. I will work with Congress to get them done. He didn't say that he was going to do them by himself. "work with".People are angry and frustrated so they say things they wouldn't say to their grandchildren. Who would want depressed grandchildren with no hope?

[Guest]

There is general theme on this board. It is make statements like Obama never uses the word "we", and always I me, but never back them up with actual video to support your comments.

In his last state of the Union address, he gave the items that he wanted to work on in his last year of presidency. I will work with Congress to get them done. He didn't say that he was going to do them by himself. "work with".

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

That is hanging out there in the past along with hope, change and transparency;

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

There is general theme on this board. It is make statements like Obama never uses the word "we", and always I me, but never back them up with actual video to support your comments.

In his last state of the Union address, he gave the items that he wanted to work on in his last year of presidency. I will work with Congress to get them done. He didn't say that he was going to do them by himself. "work with".

Apparently, you haven't had a TV or Internet in the past seven years, or you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements. EVERY speech he has made in the past has been I, ME, MY... Where have you been? Even over seas, I heard his hubris in his constant taking credit for everything except the weather. He NEVER says we or us in his speeches, except when he says such things as "we need" to do this or that, meaning us and not him. And when he is apologizing, it is always "we" not him. Like he is apologizing for America, but he didn't have anything to do with whatever it is that he thinks we did.

[Guest]

Apparently, you haven't had a TV or Internet in the past seven years, or you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements. EVERY speech he has made in the past has been I, ME, MY... Where have you been? Even over seas, I heard his hubris in his constant taking credit for everything except the weather. He NEVER says we or us in his speeches, except when he says such things as "we need" to do this or that, meaning us and not him. And when he is apologizing, it is always "we" not him. Like he is apologizing for America, but he didn't have anything to do with whatever it is that he thinks we did.

Obama succinctly defined!

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Apparently, you haven't had a TV or Internet in the past seven years, or you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements. EVERY speech he has made in the past has been I, ME, MY... Where have you been? Even over seas, I heard his hubris in his constant taking credit for everything except the weather. He NEVER says we or us in his speeches, except when he says such things as "we need" to do this or that, meaning us and not him. And when he is apologizing, it is always "we" not him. Like he is apologizing for America, but he didn't have anything to do with whatever it is that he thinks we did.

President Obama has a 53 percent approval rating. That is way higher than Crapweasel Bush had at the same time in office.

Congress has a 14 percent approval rating.

It is very easy to see that President Obama is far more popular than Congress - oh yes, a Republican controlled Congress.

:popcorn:

[Guest]

President Obama has a 53 percent approval rating. That is way higher than Crapweasel Bush had at the same time in office.

Congress has a 14 percent approval rating.

It is very easy to see that President Obama is far more popular than Congress - oh yes, a Republican controlled Congress.

:popcorn:

And the curb is 6 inches higher that the gutter!!! Fan-dam-tastic logic!!

[Guest]

And the curb is 6 inches higher that the gutter!!! Fan-dam-tastic logic!!

Ah yes, the REPUBLICAN controlled congress, that the people elected after just a couple years of tyranny. There will be dancing in the streets when Obama is seen driving out of D.C. for the last time.

[Guest]

Apparently, you haven't had a TV or Internet in the past seven years, or you wouldn't make such ludicrous statements.
I was with you until I got to that statement.

Is there another way to respond on TOTV besides the Internet? Can you explain that to me?

[Guest]

I was with you until I got to that statement.

Is there another way to respond on TOTV besides the Internet? Can you explain that to me?

Thank you. You apparently fit the statement precisely. Can I explain it? Sorry, but I doubt I have enough time before the short bus arrives to transport you.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1204222]Half the work force has stopped looking for work. The total work force is 156 million. The total US population is 323 million. 156 x 2 = 312 million.
So, children of school age and under, and retired people in the US makes up the difference 11 million. Don't you think that half is just a little high?
QUOTE]

Look, I am a far left progressive, in the Elizabeth Warren wing, but your statement that 1/2 the work force has stopped looking is ridiculous and making feces up doesn't help our side look reasonable. The bureau of labor statistics actually studies these things so you don't have to guess. It should be obvious that not every American is seeking employment. There are plenty of homes with a stay at home parent. Members of the military are not counted as employed. Etc. etc.

There are 60 million Americans on Social Security There are 70 million under age 18, so that gives you 130 million right off the top.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/
Persons under age 18, 2015-2060 (http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/qa01101.asp)

Here is the data, and if you are really interested in how the data is collected the BLS website is very thorough
Employment Situation Summary (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm)

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1204245]

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%

Guess he wasn't far off when he said "half" were not working or not employed. Those figures don't reflect those working part-time.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205490][QUOTE=Guest;1204245]

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%[/QUOT

The difference in the work force from 2000 to 2016 is 3,400,000. What was the amount of not employed/not in the labor force in 2000? You left that out. It was over 40%. The only thing that has change is the person running the country. To try and float out there that the unemployment rate is 43.1% is just plain nonsense.

Presidents in this country can't control what businesses do. The president has little control of getting the US out of a recession especially when the other party is doing everything it can to make sure that he doesn't succeed even at the cost of its citizens. Party first, citizens second. We should all feel so proud, and what we have created.

[Guest]

According to statista.com, In Feb 2016 there were only 121.76 million full-time workers in the U.S. I stand corrected, the employed adults equal about 62% of the total. That means that about 48% of eligible adults are not working. I believe that sometime between last year at this time and now, our labor force has been at a 38 year low. Since statistics are sketchy this year so far, I am not sure if we still fit the historical 38 year low.

As for your statement that no other president has had to deal with a recession like this one he was handed, I believe you will find that there have been plenty of recessions that other presidents have had to endure. And remember, Obama was the one that knew what he was asking for when he ran, and Obama is the one that assured everyone that he knew what he was doing. But, he wouldn't listen to his economic advisors, even firing them. NO, he has been responsible for the longest recession OR Depression recovery in history. Blaming Republicans for obstruction is just immature. You know as well as I do that there was NOTHING they could do in the first two years to hinder ANYTHING he wished to do. His own party may have gotten in his way, but not the Republicans. Nope, instead they insisted on forcing Obamacare through, after everyone warned them and the voters did not want it. Proof was the resulting historical congressional massacre on election day.

I believe that the point was the high rate of those that are not in the work force in comparison with employed. Please don't be insulting by suggesting that if minimum wages were higher that would change anything. Min wages are for school kids, retirees and those working a second part-time job. Min wages were never meant for full-time employment.

The Republicans didn't use the filibuster in Obama's first two years of his presidency. You can capitalize anything that you want, but that is a immature. You are of the misguided impression that the Democrats had a filibuster proof Senate. That wasn't the case.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

McConnell used the filibuster from day one of Obama's presidency. He is the king of the filibuster of that he has no equal.

The citizens in Mass. didn't want Romneycare either. They had enough signatures to get it on the ballot. The Mass. Senate stopped it from getting on the ballot. Given a chance, Romneycare worked in Mass. States that were in Republican control never gave Obamacare a chance to work.

Minimum wage was never meant for full time employment. Turning full time jobs into part time jobs was also never meant to be. Moving the majority of production jobs oversea because of cheap overseas labor was never meant to be, but that is where we are now. Increasing the minimum wage will get people off food stamps. Republicans keep throwing the number of people on food stamps as being a major problem; however, doing something that will help people get off food stamps is a bridge too far. Republicans would rather complain than fix a problem that exists in their minds.

Does anyone in their right mind think that Trump will be able to change anything? Obama was "hope and change". Trump is selling "change". Hope that anything in DC will change is now out of the question.

[Guest]

You haven't mentioned one single action above that has not been done with even more zest by the dems when in the same position.

For example the noteable job done by HArry Reid when he headed the senate. His sole purpose in life was to make sure anything he or Obama did not like never made it past his desk. How many hundreds of bills literally stopped at the inbox.

Don't be such a hypocrite and push to the background what your party did as well.

DID YA FORGET THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS?

Of course you didn't. Politicians and their supporters are all hypocrites. Especially the crony, business as usual establishment.

And as far as yapping about who would vote for TrumP? A whole lot of voters who will not vote for the Clinton felon, liar, cheateing phony.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205490][QUOTE=Guest;1204245]

Some additional information: From BLS

Work Force in 2000 = 154,746,644

Employed Work Force NOW =151,307,667
Full-Time Employed = 123,396,244

Not Employed/Not in labor force = 93,765.812

Employed 123,396,244
Not working + 93,765.812
Total = 217,162,056

Total unemployed/not working = 43.1%[/QUOT

The difference in the work force from 2000 to 2016 is 3,400,000. What was the amount of not employed/not in the labor force in 2000? You left that out. It was over 40%. The only thing that has change is the person running the country. To try and float out there that the unemployment rate is 43.1% is just plain nonsense.

Presidents in this country can't control what businesses do. The president has little control of getting the US out of a recession especially when the other party is doing everything it can to make sure that he doesn't succeed even at the cost of its citizens. Party first, citizens second. We should all feel so proud, and what we have created.

No, I did not say that the unemployment rate in 2000 was 43.1%. I used that figure for today. And that is the figure based on those in the working force plus those not in the working force. The percentage was those no longer in the working force divided by the total. That gives you the percentage, in case you are questioning the math.
Regarding the total not working percentage in 2000, the numbers I got from BLS indicate 33.8%. Your math must be off a bit.

In 2000,

Living in poverty = 32,383,466
Food Stamps = 17,458,988

Now,

Living in poverty = 46,752,103
Food Stamps = 44,927,996

That's an increase of:
44.3% in poverty level
157.3% in food stamps

The president's policies, with the help of a Democrat controlled congress had a lot to do with the decline. You act like restrictive business policies do not have any affect employment and standard of living levels.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205730][QUOTE=Guest;1205490]

No, I did not say that the unemployment rate in 2000 was 43.1%. I used that figure for today. And that is the figure based on those in the working force plus those not in the working force. The percentage was those no longer in the working force divided by the total. That gives you the percentage, in case you are questioning the math.
Regarding the total not working percentage in 2000, the numbers I got from BLS indicate 33.8%. Your math must be off a bit.

In 2000,

Living in poverty = 32,383,466
Food Stamps = 17,458,988

Now,

Living in poverty = 46,752,103
Food Stamps = 44,927,996

That's an increase of:
44.3% in poverty level
157.3% in food stamps

The president's policies, with the help of a Democrat controlled congress had a lot to do with the decline. You act like restrictive business policies do not have any affect employment and standard of living levels.

There is the problem with the numbers that you are throwing out there. You are trying to imply that all of the changes occurred in the years 2009 to date. People no longer in the work force implies that they were there to begin with. There are of plenty of spouses that were never in the work force. "No longer" implies that they were once upon a time.

I am not calling you a liar. However, the saying goes "figures lie, and liars figure". The first class in Accounting we were asked, "How much is one and one?" The answer was whatever you want it to be.

Easing up the restrictions on Wall Street threw this country into the Great Recession. Dowd/Frank addresses the problems that caused the Great Recession, and the Republicans did everything they could to make sure Dowd/Frank couldn't be enforced. They didn't approve the first person to run the overseeing of Wall Street department of the government, which was Elizabeth Warren. How did that work out for them?

You act moving high paying production jobs overseas has nothing to do with employment, and the standard of living for working people. That hasn't occur from 2009 on. That has been in affect for decades.

What president policy has resulted in the increase in people on food stamps? Try as you may, the Republicans can't walk away from the policies implemented in "W's" term of office, that has a lot to do with what we are stuck with now. There is plenty of blame to go around for our present state, but the Republicans don't want to accept any part of it.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205803][QUOTE=Guest;1205730]

There is the problem with the numbers that you are throwing out there. You are trying to imply that all of the changes occurred in the years 2009 to date. People no longer in the work force implies that they were there to begin with. There are of plenty of spouses that were never in the work force. "No longer" implies that they were once upon a time.

I am not calling you a liar. However, the saying goes "figures lie, and liars figure". The first class in Accounting we were asked, "How much is one and one?" The answer was whatever you want it to be.

Easing up the restrictions on Wall Street threw this country into the Great Recession. Dowd/Frank addresses the problems that caused the Great Recession, and the Republicans did everything they could to make sure Dowd/Frank couldn't be enforced. They didn't approve the first person to run the overseeing of Wall Street department of the government, which was Elizabeth Warren. How did that work out for them?

You act moving high paying production jobs overseas has nothing to do with employment, and the standard of living for working people. That hasn't occur from 2009 on. That has been in affect for decades.

What president policy has resulted in the increase in people on food stamps? Try as you may, the Republicans can't walk away from the policies implemented in "W's" term of office, that has a lot to do with what we are stuck with now. There is plenty of blame to go around for our present state, but the Republicans don't want to accept any part of it.

Twist it any way you wish, but the facts remain that there is higher poverty and a record high food stamp list. You can twist all the other facts all you wish. They aren't my figures, but the BLS. I didn't make them up. You want to praise Obama, I won't. I see no reason to suggest that he did anything to help the recovery. As a matter of fact, this is the slowest recovery of any past recession or depression in history. It's on his watch. If you want to blame Bush, go for it. I'll blame Clinton, because a lot of it is his fault also. And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term,,,,,,,,with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also.

Facts are still there....record food stamp recipients
High poverty level.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205959][QUOTE=Guest;1205803]

Twist it any way you wish, but the facts remain that there is higher poverty and a record high food stamp list. You can twist all the other facts all you wish. They aren't my figures, but the BLS. I didn't make them up. You want to praise Obama, I won't. I see no reason to suggest that he did anything to help the recovery. As a matter of fact, this is the slowest recovery of any past recession or depression in history. It's on his watch. If you want to blame Bush, go for it. I'll blame Clinton, because a lot of it is his fault also. And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term,,,,,,,,with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also.

Facts are still there....record food stamp recipients
High poverty level.

Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever. If the Republican candidate wins, he will blame Obama, because nothing bad ever happens on a Republican's watch.

I haven't praised anyone. Do you know what got America out of the depression? It was WWII. Until the wars in the 21 century, wars result in full employment.

"And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also." That is right it does suggest something, which is what I just stated nothing is ever the Republicans fault, or nothing that they will ever admit to.

The next thing you are going to tell me is the economic condition that "W" was handed was the same as what he past to Obama. You just will not accept the fact that all recessions aren't the same. Economic conditions are the same now as they were in the 70's, 80's, and 90's despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205973][QUOTE=Guest;1205959]

Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever. If the Republican candidate wins, he will blame Obama, because nothing bad ever happens on a Republican's watch.

I haven't praised anyone. Do you know what got America out of the depression? It was WWII. Until the wars in the 21 century, wars result in full employment.

"And Bush had a very good economy until the last two years of his second term with Democrat controlled congress. That should suggest something also." That is right it does suggest something, which is what I just stated nothing is ever the Republicans fault, or nothing that they will ever admit to.

The next thing you are going to tell me is the economic condition that "W" was handed was the same as what he past to Obama. You just will not accept the fact that all recessions aren't the same. Economic conditions are the same now as they were in the 70's, 80's, and 90's despite all evidence to the contrary.

You do have it skewed. You are very mixed up and/or brainwashed by your ideology. Other than Obama, have you ever heard a new president blame his troubles and his failure on a previous president?

I'm not going to educate you. You seem like a smart enough person, even though you are so totally mislead.

Now that you defended Obama, how are you going to explain Hillary's troubles? Are you going to blame Bush for that also? Or, are you going to suggest that it is a vast right wing conspiracy? She is a criminal and a liar and a thief. Are you still going to vote for her?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1205973][QUOTE=Guest;1205959]

Do you know what will happen in the next presidency? This is what will happen the highest poverty level ever, and the most people on food stamps ever.



Because it REALLY doesn't matter who wins as long as it's one of THEIR guys.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...no matter the party.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206014][QUOTE=Guest;1205973]

Because it REALLY doesn't matter who wins as long as it's one of THEIR guys.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...no matter the party.

What do you want, a lottery for the position of president? Get a life and quit worrying about the great government conspiracy.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206040][QUOTE=Guest;1206014]

What do you want, a lottery for the position of president? Get a life and quit worrying about the great government conspiracy.

It would be better than the current system. Two bought and paid for crooks paraded in front of us like they're "great people" we should look up to. They're lying thieves who should be hanging not running for office.

Your "government" is lying and stealing from you to the tune of $20 trillion, $20,000,000,000,000 and you tell me to "get a life, quit worrying about it".

OK then, who will? Or should we all just close our eyes, vote for their crook, and pretend everything is OK? Like you do...

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206102][QUOTE=Guest;1206040]

It would be better than the current system. Two bought and paid for crooks paraded in front of us like they're "great people" we should look up to. They're lying thieves who should be hanging not running for office.

Your "government" is lying and stealing from you to the tune of $20 trillion, $20,000,000,000,000 and you tell me to "get a life, quit worrying about it".

OK then, who will? Or should we all just close our eyes, vote for their crook, and pretend everything is OK? Like you do...

The point is, if you have no solution to the problem, why kill yourself worrying about it? Complaining about something, doesn't get it fixed. If you have an idea about how to fix something, do something about it. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time worrying and it's not healthy. I had a boss once, that told me not to come to him complaining about something unless I also brought a solution to him.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206112][QUOTE=Guest;1206102]

The point is, if you have no solution to the problem, why kill yourself worrying about it? Complaining about something, doesn't get it fixed. If you have an idea about how to fix something, do something about it. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time worrying and it's not healthy. I had a boss once, that told me not to come to him complaining about something unless I also brought a solution to him.

I have the solution and it's real simple. Don't vote for ANYONE with a D or R after their name. You already KNOW they're crooked, a liar, the lesser of two evils...so STOP voting for them.

Vote Libertarian, vote independent, ANYONE but a know crook!

Our "leaders" are ALL corrupt, they ALL work for the corporations who put them there.

The REAL problem is you. You're convinced that any vote for someone other than their crook, is a wasted vote. No, the wasted vote is the vote for another crook, the lesser of two evils. If we'd just do our damn job and vote for the BEST candidate, we could fix things.

Your job isn't to guess who the winner will be and vote for him. Your job is to vote for the best man and MAKE him win.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206126][QUOTE=Guest;1206112]

I have the solution and it's real simple. Don't vote for ANYONE with a D or R after their name. You already KNOW they're crooked, a liar, the lesser of two evils...so STOP voting for them.

Vote Libertarian, vote independent, ANYONE but a know crook!

Our "leaders" are ALL corrupt, they ALL work for the corporations who put them there.

The REAL problem is you. You're convinced that any vote for someone other than their crook, is a wasted vote. No, the wasted vote is the vote for another crook, the lesser of two evils. If we'd just do our damn job and vote for the BEST candidate, we could fix things.

Your job isn't to guess who the winner will be and vote for him. Your job is to vote for the best man and MAKE him win.

You need help. You have been on here time and again, trying to get people to vote for someone other than the Dem or Rep candidates. You have NO ONE to vote for other than them. As far as I am concerned, even if you had a Libertarian to vote for, I would not vote for him/her. As far as I am concerned, a Libertarian is no different than a liberal. So, you go ahead foaming at the mouth and waste your vote. It's your prerogative to do so. I know that only one of two will be elected. I want to have some say as to which one. I am not about to stand in line and vote for Howdy Doodie. So, go ahead and rant and rave about the "Ds" and the "R's" and the big conspiracy.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206140][QUOTE=Guest;1206126]

You need help. You have been on here time and again, trying to get people to vote for someone other than the Dem or Rep candidates. You have NO ONE to vote for other than them. As far as I am concerned, even if you had a Libertarian to vote for, I would not vote for him/her. As far as I am concerned, a Libertarian is no different than a liberal. So, you go ahead foaming at the mouth and waste your vote. It's your prerogative to do so. I know that only one of two will be elected. I want to have some say as to which one. I am not about to stand in line and vote for Howdy Doodie. So, go ahead and rant and rave about the "Ds" and the "R's" and the big conspiracy.

You poor enslaved soul... A Libertarian is the same as a liberal? Really?

Libertarian - a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Better then being told everything you can and can't do. It doesn't mean anarchy, there are still laws, just less of them.

What does the D or R party want? Money. That's what they both stand for. Anything that will get them more money.

You are the one wasting a vote, "7 of 9"...you've been assimilated. Welcome to the Borg, resistance is futile. Ain't that true? ONLY a D or R lackey can win. Why? Because you gave up. You let the Borg win.

Someday I hope the light goes off for you...

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206014][QUOTE=Guest;1205973]

You do have it skewed. You are very mixed up and/or brainwashed by your ideology. Other than Obama, have you ever heard a new president blame his troubles and his failure on a previous president?

I'm not going to educate you. You seem like a smart enough person, even though you are so totally mislead.

Now that you defended Obama, how are you going to explain Hillary's troubles? Are you going to blame Bush for that also? Or, are you going to suggest that it is a vast right wing conspiracy? She is a criminal and a liar and a thief. Are you still going to vote for her?

If being an Independent is an ideology, then I have ideology. If something isn't working, why can't you just fix it without blaming someone, who may have created the problem? Blaming the other party is a constant state of being. Why does it have to be an incurable disease?

I googled Has Obama blamed Bush, there was plenty of article there. All of them written by Republican leaning people. Most of them quoted Obama defending himself from charges brought against him. The same charges that you see on this site all the time, ie: running up the deficit, Iraq, and Afgan wars. Obama did inherit a total mess. Maybe if Republicans stop blaming him for everything, Obama wouldn't have to defend himself, and "W" would quietly disappear into history.

Am I still going to vote for Hillary? I wouldn't vote for Hillary, if she was the only name on the ballot. If it is Hillary or Trump, I will either slip that choice, or write in Donald Duck.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206149][QUOTE=Guest;1206140]

You poor enslaved soul... A Libertarian is the same as a liberal? Really?

Libertarian - a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility. The Libertarian Party itself serves a much larger pro-liberty community with the specific mission of electing Libertarians to public office.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

In a nutshell, we are advocates for a smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Better then being told everything you can and can't do. It doesn't mean anarchy, there are still laws, just less of them.

What does the D or R party want? Money. That's what they both stand for. Anything that will get them more money.

You are the one wasting a vote, "7 of 9"...you've been assimilated. Welcome to the Borg, resistance is futile. Ain't that true? ONLY a D or R lackey can win. Why? Because you gave up. You let the Borg win.

Someday I hope the light goes off for you...

Seek help. If you can't afford your meds, I am sure there are programs out there that will help you. You probably should cut back on smoking Peyote.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206023][QUOTE=Guest;1206014]

If being an Independent is an ideology, then I have ideology. If something isn't working, why can't you just fix it without blaming someone, who may have created the problem? Blaming the other party is a constant state of being. Why does it have to be an incurable disease?

I googled Has Obama blamed Bush, there was plenty of article there. All of them written by Republican leaning people. Most of them quoted Obama defending himself from charges brought against him. The same charges that you see on this site all the time, ie: running up the deficit, Iraq, and Afgan wars. Obama did inherit a total mess. Maybe if Republicans stop blaming him for everything, Obama wouldn't have to defend himself, and "W" would quietly disappear into history.

Am I still going to vote for Hillary? I wouldn't vote for Hillary, if she was the only name on the ballot. If it is Hillary or Trump, I will either slip that choice, or write in Donald Duck.

If you needed to Google in order to find out where and when Obama blamed Bush for his problems, you have been way too long locked away in the psych ward. All you had to do is listen to his speeches (hundreds of them to choose from) and you would hear him yourself. It has nothing to do with Republican writing. Obama is the one that blamed Bush, not the Republicans. If Obama wasn't such a failure, you wouldn't have to defend him. You act like he is a victim.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206023][QUOTE=Guest;1206014]

Am I still going to vote for Hillary? I wouldn't vote for Hillary, if she was the only name on the ballot. If it is Hillary or Trump, I will either slip that choice, or write in Donald Duck.

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206230][QUOTE=Guest;1206149]

Seek help. If you can't afford your meds, I am sure there are programs out there that will help you. You probably should cut back on smoking Peyote.

Have you ever had a real thought or comment about anything? As Anderson Cooper said: "This is the response of a 5 year old". Got something to say" Say it.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206274][QUOTE=Guest;1206230]

Have you ever had a real thought or comment about anything? As Anderson Cooper said: "This is the response of a 5 year old". Got something to say" Say it.

When you get warped and delusional comments that are irrational, then they warrant pointing such gibberish out. I've made my comment about a valid vote, and you want to waste your vote with a write in, and that is your prerogative. Just pointing out the wasted effort in the guise of making a point. There is no one to see or care about that point. A wasted vote for a write in, is a non-vote. But, I would rather a non-vote than a vote for the two scumbags on the left. Thank you for your non-vote.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206274][QUOTE=Guest;1206230]

Have you ever had a real thought or comment about anything? As Anderson Cooper said: "This is the response of a 5 year old". Got something to say" Say it.

You are so confused that you mixed up two different poster's comments. At any rate, I'll be the one that will be voting for the lesser of two evils, not a write in for Donald Duck.
And Anderson Cooper would say to you: "take your meds."

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206274]

When you get warped and delusional comments that are irrational, then they warrant pointing such gibberish out. I've made my comment about a valid vote, and you want to waste your vote with a write in, and that is your prerogative. Just pointing out the wasted effort in the guise of making a point. There is no one to see or care about that point. A wasted vote for a write in, is a non-vote. But, I would rather a non-vote than a vote for the two scumbags on the left. Thank you for your non-vote.

[QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?

[QUOTE=Guest;1206274]

You are so confused that you mixed up two different poster's comments. At any rate, I'll be the one that will be voting for the lesser of two evils, not a write in for Donald Duck.
And Anderson Cooper would say to you: "take your meds."

YOU keep mentioning a "write in". Can't get that straight either?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206460][QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?



[QUOTE=Guest;1206462][QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?



YOU keep mentioning a "write in". Can't get that straight either?

Whatever you say. Live your delusion. There are only TWO possible candidates for the presidential election, that are viable. No one votes for the Ralph Naders of our elections. But, you go ahead and vote for someone that you KNOW will not be elected. Like I said, it's your prerogative.
One of these days you are going to slip and call someone a "fool" to their face and they are going to knock you on your @ss. It has probably happened before. If you comment on here in such an irrational manner, it is only a matter of time before you forget yourself in public. I would love to be there when that happens. You are in for a great revelation.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206480][QUOTE=Guest;1206460][QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?



[QUOTE=Guest;1206462][QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245]

Whatever you say. Live your delusion. There are only TWO possible candidates for the presidential election, that are viable. No one votes for the Ralph Naders of our elections. But, you go ahead and vote for someone that you KNOW will not be elected. Like I said, it's your prerogative.
One of these days you are going to slip and call someone a "fool" to their face and they are going to knock you on your @ss. It has probably happened before. If you comment on here in such an irrational manner, it is only a matter of time before you forget yourself in public. I would love to be there when that happens. You are in for a great revelation.

Talk to the hand...blah blah blah...nothing but garbage in your post. Nobody votes for them because they're fools. Fools like you. Vote for the lesser of two evils, play their game...slave.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1206528][QUOTE=Guest;1206480][QUOTE=Guest;1206460][QUOTE=Guest;1206425][QUOTE=Guest;1206245][QUOTE=Guest;1206023]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate?



[QUOTE=Guest;1206462][QUOTE=Guest;1206425]

Talk to the hand...blah blah blah...nothing but garbage in your post. Nobody votes for them because they're fools. Fools like you. Vote for the lesser of two evils, play their game...slave.

Yes, yes, they say one should humor the mental cases. I pity your neighbors. Vote or don't vote. I don't care. It won't make any difference anyway. What ever satisfies you. The only difference it will make is when you come back on here and tell someone that you voted for an unknown. Otherwise, no one will know or care. Don't forget to wear your little "I voted" sticker proudly.........:loco:

[Guest]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate

I am the fool? The fools are ones that will be putting Trump. and Clinton on the ballot. My guess is are one of those fools. All the good candidates got thrown by the waste side by fools. I vote for John Kasich. Anybody with a brain in their head, would make him the Republican nominee. When your brain is located a lot lower, you wind up with a Trump. Cruz is worse than Trump.

You have a strange definition of the word GOOD. If you think Trump, Cruz and Clinton are GOOD, seek help. Do you think that, if any one of these three gets elected, anything in DC will change? The next four years will be the last 7+ on steroids. This might pass for GOOD in your world. In the real world, it really sucks.

Maybe the rules will be changed at the Republican National Convention, and a person that didn't win eight states can be nominated. If nobody get 1,237 in the first ballot, sanity can be restored, and a person that will work with the Democrats to get things down will be the Republican nominee.

[Guest]

Fool, there will be GOOD choices on the ballot. Bad enough you waste your vote on a corrupt "lesser of two evils", now you guarantee you've thrown it away by writing in Donald Duck. What the hell is wrong with you? Seriously, why do you REFUSE to vote for the BEST candidate

I am the fool? The fools are ones that will be putting Trump. and Clinton on the ballot. My guess is are one of those fools. All the good candidates got thrown by the waste side by fools. I vote for John Kasich. Anybody with a brain in their head, would make him the Republican nominee. When your brain is located a lot lower, you wind up with a Trump. Cruz is worse than Trump.

You have a strange definition of the word GOOD. If you think Trump, Cruz and Clinton are GOOD, seek help. Do you think that, if any one of these three gets elected, anything in DC will change? The next four years will be the last 7+ on steroids. This might pass for GOOD in your world. In the real world, it really sucks.

Maybe the rules will be changed at the Republican National Convention, and a person that didn't win eight states can be nominated. If nobody get 1,237 in the first ballot, sanity can be restored, and a person that will work with the Democrats to get things down will be the Republican nominee.

What in the last seven years makes you think that the Democrats should be given any consideration or compromise? Where did you ever see compromise in the first two years of total Democrat controlled government? Why is it that you think that voting on an issue that pushes our country the wrong way, deserves the Republicans to go in the same direction? Like Obama said, elections have consequences. The kids had total control of the car keys and did their little joy ride, so the adults had to take the keys from them. That's what happens when you act irresponsibly. You liberals seem to think that the adults should join the joy ride and not go to work. Sorry, but you lefties lost your right to have a say. It's time for YOUR side to start compromising. You had total control and your side ran amok, getting what accomplished? Obamacare. Nothing else. And Obamacare is a disaster. The right did not vote for it because they knew it was a disaster. You all complained and called us the party of "NO." The people spoke and you lost total control of congress. Obama will leave the White House in disgrace, having nothing to show for his time but a failed legacy, party and racial divide and a leaderless world in chaos.

[Guest]

Here is an example of Obama's version of compromise:

VIDEO: WH Censors French President Saying (http://mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamist-terrorism-french-president)

Such transparancy......BS!

If he is willing to risk the wrath of real Americans by censoring what we see and hear what else is he doing that is not as discoverable.

Compromise is follow the party drum beat or he black SUV will be dispatched!!

[Guest]

Here is an example of Obama's version of compromise:

VIDEO: WH Censors French President Saying (http://mrctv.org/blog/video-wh-censors-reference-islamist-terrorism-french-president)

Such transparancy......BS!

If he is willing to risk the wrath of real Americans by censoring what we see and hear what else is he doing that is not as discoverable.

Compromise is follow the party drum beat or he black SUV will be dispatched!!
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/01/conservative-media-push-conspiracy-that-obama-c/209705

Conservative outlets quickly hatched a conspiracy theory that the White House "censored" French President Francois Hollande from using the phrase "Islamist terrorism" during a bilateral meeting with President Obama in Washington, D.C. The White House explained the issue was simply a technical glitch that was fixed immediately.

Always happens

[Guest]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/01/conservative-media-push-conspiracy-that-obama-c/209705

Conservative outlets quickly hatched a conspiracy theory that the White House "censored" French President Francois Hollande from using the phrase "Islamist terrorism" during a bilateral meeting with President Obama in Washington, D.C. The White House explained the issue was simply a technical glitch that was fixed immediately.

Always happens

Yes, a "technical glitch" wink, wink...........:smiley:

[Guest]

What in the last seven years makes you think that the Democrats should be given any consideration or compromise? Where did you ever see compromise in the first two years of total Democrat controlled government? Why is it that you think that voting on an issue that pushes our country the wrong way, deserves the Republicans to go in the same direction? Like Obama said, elections have consequences. The kids had total control of the car keys and did their little joy ride, so the adults had to take the keys from them. That's what happens when you act irresponsibly. You liberals seem to think that the adults should join the joy ride and not go to work. Sorry, but you lefties lost your right to have a say. It's time for YOUR side to start compromising. You had total control and your side ran amok, getting what accomplished? Obamacare. Nothing else. And Obamacare is a disaster. The right did not vote for it because they knew it was a disaster. You all complained and called us the party of "NO." The people spoke and you lost total control of congress. Obama will leave the White House in disgrace, having nothing to show for his time but a failed legacy, party and racial divide and a leaderless world in chaos.

The Democrats did not have total control in 2009, and 2010.
Did The Democrats Ever Really Have 60 Votes In The Senate, And For How Long? (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/)
They didn't have a filibuster proof Senate, and McConnell used the filibuster on just about everything. The Republicans earned the name "the party of No". McConnell is paying the price for that now, because goes around comes around. Now, the Republicans have to deal with the Democrats filibustering just about everything. Too bad, so sad!

Who is defining what is the right direction, and what is the wrong direction? Let me guess. Everything the Republicans want to do is right, and everything the Democrats want to do is wrong. That is just so obvious to everyone with a closed mind.

Obamacare is disaster. Is it? It may be a disaster in Republican control states that did everything to make sure that it failed. There are a lot of states that would disagree with the blanket statement that it is a failure. Take Obama's name of it, and it would be just fine.

How many lefties voted for John Kasich? I am a registered Republican.

Do you remember this statement by a Republican congressman, "give us everything that we want, and we will call that a compromise." Is this the compromise that Democrats should strive for getting everything they want? I am sure they will have no problem with that definition of compromise. If you have noticed, and by your comment you haven't, compromise is a swear word in DC. Republicans keep on throwing Reagan's name out there as a shining example of their party. Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil to get things done. This must have been one of Reagan's short comings.

The people spoke, and so did Gerrymandering. What happened in DC? Not a damn thing. So, they are speaking again with Trump. If the Republicans put Trump as their nominee, they could very well say goodbye to the Senate. Speaking and not listening seems to be bridge to far for the Republicans.

Obama legacy will be just fine. The Congress, and the Senate in his term will be a whole different matter.