President Barack Obama/Vice-President Joe Biden Re-elected to 2nd Term Thread

[deejaydana]

Does it bother you at all that the very posts that you cite to support your bombastic recitation of talking points, actually say that they aren't true?

You posted an article, in which your own article points out the fact that there have been fewer reculations in the first three years of Obama, than there were under Bush.

(But, your article points out, if you allow the Heritage Foundation to cherry pick which rules they think are important, vs which ones they didn't like from Bush, well, then it's different. "News Flash: Heritage Foundation doesn't like Obama as much as Bush! This proves that Obama is evil!")

You just can't stand that he's spent more money than Bush, right? I've thrown in a caveat that plenty don't bother reading in that post where I state I don't back all that they're asserting BUT I fully stand by my point that Obama is as business savvy as an ice cream vendor in the Arctic. Plenty of the bullet points I've added are in fact deliterous to business and they're all his.

[Hersh]

You just can't stand that he's spent more money than Bush, right? I've thrown in a caveat that plenty don't bother reading in that post where I state I don't back all that they're asserting BUT I fully stand by my point that Obama is as business savvy as an ice cream vendor in the Arctic.

You just can't stand that much of Obama's debt is from policies that predate his presidency.

[@DCGoldPants]

You just can't stand that much of Obama's debt is from policies that predate his presidency.

psssttt. The economy wasn't collapsing under the weight of deregulation and over-exploited loopholes in 2008 before the last election. It was going great until Obama was sworn in....and that moment his business hating ass killed it. Read a blog!

[deejaydana]

You just can't stand that much of Obama's debt is from policies that predate his presidency.

Where have I made even a SINGLE post supporting Bush in this entire thread? I haven't. Both parties have clearly failed up, I just find the Dems have done it more convincingly.

[Larry]

You just can't stand that he's spent more money than Bush, right?

Untrue Talking Point And one which has nothing to do with my post.

Wonder why people keep treating you like somebody with his head firmly planted in the Right Wing Echo Chamber?

---------- Post added July-31st-2012 at 11:01 AM ----------

Where have I made even a SINGLE post supporting Bush in this entire thread? I haven't. Both parties have clearly failed up, I just find the Dems have done it more convincingly.

And you believe that because the echo chamber that you keep your head firmly planted in, has been lying to you for years, and you've swallowed it.

[Hersh]

Where have I made even a SINGLE post supporting Bush in this entire thread? I haven't. Both parties have clearly failed up, I just find the Dems have done it more convincingly.

Of course you do because that's the narrative you've created in your mind despite facts to the contrary.

[GSF]

Does it bother you at all that the very posts that you cite to support your bombastic recitation of talking points, actually say that they aren't true?

You posted an article, in which your own article points out the fact that there have been fewer reculations in the first three years of Obama, than there were under Bush.

(But, your article points out, if you allow the Heritage Foundation to cherry pick which rules they think are important, vs which ones they didn't like from Bush, well, then it's different. "News Flash: Heritage Foundation doesn't like Obama as much as Bush! This proves that Obama is evil!")

You must have missed Dana's caveat that he doesn't actually agree with some of the points he's making...

---------- Post added July-31st-2012 at 04:13 PM ----------

Where have I made even a SINGLE post supporting Bush in this entire thread? I haven't. Both parties have clearly failed up, I just find the Dems have done it more convincingly.

Really? Bush took us into the worst economy in our lifetime. Obama hasn't fixed it fast enough, but let's go back to what Bush was doing. Clearly that was working great...

[nonniey]

Does it bother you at all that the very posts that you cite to support your bombastic recitation of talking points, actually say that they aren't true?

You posted an article, in which your own article points out the fact that there have been fewer reculations in the first three years of Obama, than there were under Bush.

(But, your article points out, if you allow the Heritage Foundation to cherry pick which rules they think are important, vs which ones they didn't like from Bush, well, then it's different. "News Flash: Heritage Foundation doesn't like Obama as much as Bush! This proves that Obama is evil!")

Larry explain away the cost difference. Bush implemented regulations which increased annual costs by about $8 billion, Obama has implemented regulations with annual costs of $46 billion (and climbing) in addition to inital layouts of $11 billion.

[@DCGoldPants]

Really? Bush took us into the worst economy in our lifetime. Obama hasn't fixed it fast enough, but let's go back to what Bush was doing. Clearly that was working great...

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The world economy isn't going to back to how it was in the 90's. So, like some folks said a few years ago. You drive your car into a ditch....a tow tuck shows up and then you start complaining how he/she is driving, and what route they're taking? A warm glass of STFU is in order for that.

[Larry]

Larry explain away the cost difference. Bush implemented regulations which increased annual costs by about $8 billion, Obama has implemented regulations with annual costs of $46 billion (and climbing) in addition to inital layouts of $11 billion.

The costs of what?

Some spinmeister's opinion of "the cost of regulation"?

[twa]

ya'll need to hit the tip jar

[deejaydana]

Of course you do because that's the narrative you've created in your mind despite facts to the contrary.

And that's all you can conjure? Look it's clearly 2 distinctly different ways of seeing how we move forward. I'll own Bush's flaws. Many people on this board can't own any of Obama's and there are plenty of them. I don't post weak sauce like you just did here because I 'll rightly credit that we just have different views altogether. I think we'd all do better if we applied equal vigilance to both parties at all times.

[88Comrade2000]

Well, just 2 months until October. The 3 debates will probably decide it or will it.

Will Obama have an October surprise waiting to bring out if needed, to boost his poll numbers.

1. Joe Biden has to retire for health reasons and Hillary becomes the Veep?

2. Some sort of confrontation with Iran; so that the country rallies around him?

3. Proof that Romney is ineligible to be president?

There's bound to be something, right?

[deejaydana]

Well, just 2 months until October. The 3 debates will probably decide it or will it.

Will Obama have an October surprise waiting to bring out if needed, to boost his poll numbers.

1. Joe Biden has to retire for health reasons and Hillary becomes the Veep?

2. Some sort of confrontation with Iran; so that the country rallies around him?

3. Proof that Romney is ineligible to be president?

There's bound to be something, right?

It's a loooong way till Nov. Everyone's enjoying the Olympics at the moment. Both candidates (sadly) seem futile to me.

[Larry]

And that's all you can conjure? Look it's clearly 2 distinctly different ways of seeing how we move forward. I'll own Bush's flaws. Many people on this board can't own any of Obama's and there are plenty of them. I don't post weak sauce like you just did here because I 'll rightly credit that we just have different views altogether. I think we'd all do better if we applied equal vigilance to both parties at all times.

Believing things that aren't true is not "2 different ways of seeing things".

Pretending that all of the bad consequences that happened, because of the Republican Party's policies, were Bush's fault, while continuing to actively advocate for those exact same policies, is not "owning Bush's flaws".

Other people pointing out that your untrue claims about Obama are untrue is not "many people cannot own any of Obama's flaws".

[@DCGoldPants]

Kind of amazing considering how slow the recovery has been.

Obama leads Romney in three key swing states

President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters in Ohio and Florida - and has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania - according to a Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted from July 24-30, shows Mr. Obama leading his presumptive Republican challenger 53 percent to 42 percent in Pennsylvania. The 11-point lead results largely from independents, who favor the president by 22 points, and women, who favor the president by 24 points.

Mr. Obama holds a six-point lead in Ohio, 50 percent to 44 percent, a state where he holds a campaign event later today. His lead here is also due in large part to women, who back him by a 21-point margin. Romney leads by ten points among Ohio men, and seven points among Ohio whites.

In Florida, Mr. Obama also holds a six point lead, 51 percent to 45 percent. He holds a small lead among both men and women and a 19-point lead among Hispanics, while Romney leads by double-digits among whites and voters age 65 and above.

more from the link

[skinsmarydu]

Thanks buford...I was gonna post that. I sure am glad he never promised a speedy recovery.

[@DCGoldPants]

Thanks buford...I was gonna post that. I sure am glad he never promised a speedy recovery.

Nobody is going to say that the recovery is fast enough for anybody. But it is a recovery, right? Or is it a collapse still?

[skinsmarydu]

Nobody is going to say that the recovery is fast enough for anybody. But it is a recovery, right? Or is it a collapse still?

Definitely a recovery. A slow one, but it's coming along. I don't wanna change course now.

[Burgold]

Definitely a recovery. A slow one, but it's coming along. I don't wanna change course now.

Are you really opposed to doubling down on the Bush policies of 4, 6, and 8 years ago that Romney, the Republicans, and the Tea Party so embrace?

[skinsmarydu]

Are you really opposed to doubling down on the Bush policies of 4, 6, and 8 years ago that Romney, the Republicans, and the Tea Party so embrace?

Yes, I am. I'm voting for Barack. Again.

[Burgold]

Yes, I am. I'm voting for Barack. Again.

But the Bush years set us up for prosperity like we've never seen? After all Bush retroactively retired from the Presidency in 1999. Thus, gets credit for all of Clinton's successes and Obama gets the blame for Iraq, the Banking disaster, the housing bubble,the bailouts that occurred before his election, etc...

[skinsmarydu]

But the Bush years set us up for prosperity like we've never seen? After all Bush retroactively retired from the Presidency in 1999. Thus, gets credit for all of Clinton's successes and Obama gets the blame for Iraq, the Banking disaster, the housing bubble,the bailouts that occurred before his election, etc...

Well, when you consider that Bush technically wasn't elected, he was appointed POTUS by the SCOTUS...I guess he could claim whatever he wants.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

[Burgold]

Cute, but also distressing. I think his number one reason makes me hope this was a satire. The blooper reel was also kinda funny.