he actually believes he can replay the same tape that stole him the election:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

He must really think he is effective when he preaches from his pulpit...he actually thinks he can swindle America again.

We can't get rid of him in the November election but we can take his check book away and send him a dose of reality.

Oooopps...I forgot that would be meaningful to one who cares.....he does not.

btk

I am doing my part, contributing time and money where I can. I can't wait to vote in 55 days...counting them down !!

Those few who come on here and criticize those of us who oppose this President amaze me.

They NEVER have any details but accuse us of not sharing any...wonder how they feel about the blackmail, backroom, unwanted by america health bill that will hang over our economic heads for many many years without ever ever reaching the goal the administration set.....OR the stimulus bill that did nothing for jobs, but whose tentacles will change america for many many years (the stimulus..you remember the one that nobody read),,,OR a man who promised so much and has turned his back on those promises so very quickly (all that transparency, etc)...OR the man who talked and conned us with the lack of politics and has turned into the most political president ever....OR his total lack of leadership in situations where we turn to the presidency for that leadership.

This country ignored all the signs...Rev Wright, the background, the associates, the lack of EVER really doing anything but politicing BUT as you know we are the ones who are either bias, race driven, religious fanatac, or some other name that those who judge us can come up with !

PS...Allow me to add...I am NOT a Republican activist....I DO NOT think Democrats are bad....I am NOT an avid fan of George Bush...I am NOT a racist....I do NOT watch or listen to Limbaugh or Beck....I am NOT a religious fanatic....I am NOT a "tea ******" nor do I even know any......I DID read about this man's past...I DID read about his lack of doing what he says.

Bucco: To me, the problem is that the previous batch was no better - just corrupt in different ways. I *really* want a viable third party to spank the existing two into historical footnotes. Way Back When, people thought Ross Perot was going to be it. Before that I remember John Anderson. Now it's the Tea Party. If they survive past November they might actually have a chance to organize into something with a more defined identity.

If the pundits are correct, we will see some massive changes in Congress this Fall. What still concerns me about the future, is that after the campaigning is done, will whoever sits in Congress start to work for the people, or will we have more of the same with just an R. after the name replacing D.

I still think that the Contract With America was a good idea then, and maybe it is time to re-visit it and make our elected officials start working for the folks that sent them to DC.

Gingrich said it "Campaigning is easy, governing is hard."

Originally Posted by djplong

Bucco: To me, the problem is that the previous batch was no better - just corrupt in different ways. I *really* want a viable third party to spank the existing two into historical footnotes. Way Back When, people thought Ross Perot was going to be it. Before that I remember John Anderson. Now it's the Tea Party. If they survive past November they might actually have a chance to organize into something with a more defined identity.

The previous bunch may have been just as bad BUT THEY ARE NOT THERE NOW thus I never understand talking about them.

The Tea Party, IN MY OPINION, is a movement based on theory...I think that might be the word I want....with NO plans. They need, IF indeed the movement wants to be a party and not just a major influence on the Republican party, they have a way to go, and also in my opinion, simply being an influence will not work !

Now, to add to what I said originally, THIS administration, THE ONE IN POWER right now, is not only the most political group ever in the WH, but now the message is so confusing from them. You know, they beat Bush, etal to death during the campaign and still due on privacy issues and read today in the NYTIMES that this administration is even more into what they called "invading privacy" but do you hear any cries about it ? NOPE....why I wonder

I DO agree with your general premise about BOTH parties. My wife has an interesting theory on choosing who to vote for. She say....select which general philosophy you agree with (conservative or liberal)...vote for them and then HOPE that they stay true to that message !

Originally Posted by billethkid

he actually believes he can replay the same tape that stole him the election:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

He must really think he is effective when he preaches from his pulpit...he actually thinks he can swindle America again.

We can't get rid of him in the November election but we can take his check book away and send him a dose of reality.

Oooopps...I forgot that would be meaningful to one who cares.....he does not.


btk

You talk about out of touch. That describes you perfectly.

Originally Posted by djplong

Bucco: To me, the problem is that the previous batch was no better - just corrupt in different ways. I *really* want a viable third party to spank the existing two into historical footnotes. Way Back When, people thought Ross Perot was going to be it. Before that I remember John Anderson. Now it's the Tea Party. If they survive past November they might actually have a chance to organize into something with a more defined identity.

Get over it. Elections have consequences. Obama won. It is his responsibility. When is he going to man up?

Yoda

a win by one vote is still a win.
He preyed upon the masses who were looking for a change. He made promises that people believed in. He has not delivered on too many of the promises.
He was not going to do business as usual in Washington....he not only does business as usual he has brought the deal making and backroom deals a matter of practice.
He said he was going to bring transparency to the president's office....can't even say we are still waiting because he has consistently done the opposite.
He was going to create a foreign policy to return the USA to a stste of respect some thought we had lost. He has done just the opposite.
He has ignored middle America in favor of bank bail outs....big auto bail outs.
He has ignored the will of the people and rammed Obama care through when over 60% of we the people were agaist it.

I do believe he would not win an election held today based on his performance/lack of performance to date.

And thank you for including your assignation of me as part of the majority of we the people who are sick and tired of his rambling prose and those who blindly support him...and of course y'all are entitled to your respective opinions.....AS AM I, thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

a win by one vote is still a win.
He preyed upon the masses who were looking for a change. He made promises that people believed in. He has not delivered on too many of the promises.
He was not going to do business as usual in Washington....he not only does business as usual he has brought the deal making and backroom deals a matter of practice.
He said he was going to bring transparency to the president's office....can't even say we are still waiting because he has consistently done the opposite.
He was going to create a foreign policy to return the USA to a stste of respect some thought we had lost. He has done just the opposite.
He has ignored middle America in favor of bank bail outs....big auto bail outs.
He has ignored the will of the people and rammed Obama care through when over 60% of we the people were agaist it.

I do believe he would not win an election held today based on his performance/lack of performance to date.

And thank you for including your assignation of me as part of the majority of we the people who are sick and tired of his rambling prose and those who blindly support him...and of course y'all are entitled to your respective opinions.....AS AM I, thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!

btk

put your own spin on things, even when you are mostly wrong. Re, our foreign policy, like it or not, we are much more respected around the globe, than when we practiced cowboy diplomacy. I'm not saying I'm happy about all of his foreign policy initiatives, but the fact is that more people around the world find him more acceptable than Bush.
What was he going to do when he came into office? Allow GM and our biggest banks to go under? Tell that to the autoworkers in Ohio and Michigan. No serious economist thought that that was a good approach. The fact is Gm had to declare bankruptcy,,and now they are on the way back, repaying the government as are many banks. The last time I looked it was Obama who called for new tax cuts for the middle class, instead of continuing tax relief for the upper 2%. It's too early to tell if his health care plan will be a success, although I admit that it was a bad move politically. I'm pretty sure that anything he does, you will find offensive, because you're obviously a partisan right wing conservative.

When will he 'man up'? Well, Reagan, by those definitions, never did. He was blaming the Democrat-controlled Congress for the economic woes he inherited. His big campaign message was "stay the course" - and I did just that voting for him again in '84.

The bottom line is this. No matter how you spin, slice or slant it, Obama inherited an economy on a far worse precipice than Reagan did. We were looking at a complete economic meltdown. Obama could have been Jesus Christ and it wouldn't have solved the problems in four years. Everyone like to make hay of the "but he said unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5% if we passed the stimulus" and fail to note that was months before he took office. And, of course, now that we are in the midst of an admittedly anemic recovery, no credit is ever given because, well, things still suck.

The latest silliness? Reading that stimulus money hasn't been spent in places because there aren't enough government auditors to oversee the spending. (That didn't seem to stop them from handing out cash in Iraq & Afghanistan). As someone out it "So we don't have the people to oversee the money we don't have to be spent on the jobs that aren't there..."

Originally Posted by djplong

When will he 'man up'? Well, Reagan, by those definitions, never did. He was blaming the Democrat-controlled Congress for the economic woes he inherited. His big campaign message was "stay the course" - and I did just that voting for him again in '84.

The bottom line is this. No matter how you spin, slice or slant it, Obama inherited an economy on a far worse precipice than Reagan did. We were looking at a complete economic meltdown. Obama could have been Jesus Christ and it wouldn't have solved the problems in four years. Everyone like to make hay of the "but he said unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5% if we passed the stimulus" and fail to note that was months before he took office. And, of course, now that we are in the midst of an admittedly anemic recovery, no credit is ever given because, well, things still suck.

The latest silliness? Reading that stimulus money hasn't been spent in places because there aren't enough government auditors to oversee the spending. (That didn't seem to stop them from handing out cash in Iraq & Afghanistan). As someone out it "So we don't have the people to oversee the money we don't have to be spent on the jobs that aren't there..."

The big difference is when the great Ronald Reagen was President he put the money back in the hands of the American people to invest and spend and create.
Obama isn't only doing the exact opposite by spending crazily, he even wants to spend more after this didn't, because it can't and has never, grow the economy and he wants to take more and more of the money out of the hands of the private sector.
It's absolutely ludicrous to compare the greatness that was Ronald Reagen to the complete failure that is Barack Hussein Obama.

Originally Posted by djplong

When will he 'man up'? Well, Reagan, by those definitions, never did. He was blaming the Democrat-controlled Congress for the economic woes he inherited. His big campaign message was "stay the course" - and I did just that voting for him again in '84.

The bottom line is this. No matter how you spin, slice or slant it, Obama inherited an economy on a far worse precipice than Reagan did. We were looking at a complete economic meltdown. Obama could have been Jesus Christ and it wouldn't have solved the problems in four years. Everyone like to make hay of the "but he said unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5% if we passed the stimulus" and fail to note that was months before he took office. And, of course, now that we are in the midst of an admittedly anemic recovery, no credit is ever given because, well, things still suck.

The latest silliness? Reading that stimulus money hasn't been spent in places because there aren't enough government auditors to oversee the spending. (That didn't seem to stop them from handing out cash in Iraq & Afghanistan). As someone out it "So we don't have the people to oversee the money we don't have to be spent on the jobs that aren't there..."

My only comment would be this...

I am not convinced the economy approached what this President and congress said it was IN REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT. We had some serious serious housing problems for sure and if you analyze the data you find the unemployment to be in pockets where the housing market did the worse. Most areas outside them are at and have been at average unemployment !!
We can talk later about how that housing market got so bad.

That does not diminish that this administration inherited a bad situation, but I think the "man up" reference is in regard to the constant blaming of somebody else. Ever notice they never mention that congress was controlled by Democrats for the last 2 years of the era he blames ALL the problems are. YEP...he sure did inherit problems economically....This is not to in any way say that the Republicans are the good guys...but as I keep saying to you....you seem to always jump to this guys defense and subtly jab at the other side. They both are what they are...FACE IT. Problem is keeping them in the center and this guy is not near the center (Although, he now has many out preaching that he is)

NOW....about the "stimulus" bill. If that bill had actually been what it was preached it was....BUT AGAIN, they play with words (I am not absolving the other party but since you NEVER mention anything but defense for this guy..) Congress knew what they were doing as did the President. This bill was NOT what we were told it would be. It is not all spent because the true nature of it was for the future and its tentacles (read GREEN, etc) will be there for many years. Imagine a far reaching bill passed with nobody reading it....just wonderful !

Originally Posted by djplong

Bucco: To me, the problem is that the previous batch was no better - just corrupt in different ways. I *really* want a viable third party to spank the existing two into historical footnotes. Way Back When, people thought Ross Perot was going to be it. Before that I remember John Anderson. Now it's the Tea Party. If they survive past November they might actually have a chance to organize into something with a more defined identity.

I look back over your many posts and find that for the most part you just blame Bush, Blame Bush, blame Bush and not much else.

Don't you think that the POTUS is to blame for anything?

Yoda

Originally Posted by djplong

When will he 'man up'? Well, Reagan, by those definitions, never did. He was blaming the Democrat-controlled Congress for the economic woes he inherited. His big campaign message was "stay the course" - and I did just that voting for him again in '84.

The bottom line is this. No matter how you spin, slice or slant it, Obama inherited an economy on a far worse precipice than Reagan did. We were looking at a complete economic meltdown. Obama could have been Jesus Christ and it wouldn't have solved the problems in four years. Everyone like to make hay of the "but he said unemployment wouldn't go above 8.5% if we passed the stimulus" and fail to note that was months before he took office. And, of course, now that we are in the midst of an admittedly anemic recovery, no credit is ever given because, well, things still suck.

The latest silliness? Reading that stimulus money hasn't been spent in places because there aren't enough government auditors to oversee the spending. (That didn't seem to stop them from handing out cash in Iraq & Afghanistan). As someone out it "So we don't have the people to oversee the money we don't have to be spent on the jobs that aren't there..."

Please note, you never answered my question.

Yoda