Obama "stimulus" destroyed one million jobs

[Gaines]

Originally Posted by gary_wagner

Obama was the most bought and paid-for president ever. The unions gave him a billion dollars of the money they took away from their members and he gave them back $200 billion he took from the taxpayers.

If you've got the money - he is the president for you. If you don't give him money and won't vote for him, you might as well live in another country because he is a big believer in punishing those that don't fill his pockets and won't cast a vote for him.

It's a great time to be a democrat in America but that ends in 2012 because the polls show he can't beat any opponent. He loses against all named candidates and he even loses against all unnamed candidates. He's history. When he loses in a landslide, the republicans will take away what he has given in payback gifts and will give it to their supporters. It's almost as wrong as what he's doing but at least I have a chance of getting back some of that money he stole from me to give to the democrats. That's the way it works now. It's all about the money.

And then they will get voted out again in 2014 and again in 2016. Rinse, spit, repeat. This is the new world of American politics we live in. Non-stop campaigns, reward the people who vote for you, punish the people that don't, and get thrown out of office so the other party can do the same thing.

***************************************

Alright students gather round and please don't tap on the glass. It disturbs him. What we have here is a classical case of political dementia. This lunatic was picked up wandering the streets the day after the re-election of President Obama. He was screaming at motorists declaring that the world would end due to having a democrat in the white house. Very sad indeed.

Over the course of the next four years we treated him with a battery of psycho-tropic drugs and electroshock and he seemed to improve to the point where we felt he could be released. Things took a turn for the worse when Hillary won the following election. He suffered a horrific relapse but thankfully under Obama Care we were able to continue his treatments. Eight years later, Hillary had won again and we felt sure he could go home, but then something totally unexpected happened.

Weiner had resurrected his political career and out of the blue he was elected president. A complete psychotic break for Mr. Wagner.

Now he just sits in his room and watches Fox News reruns from the last Republican presidential election. Though most of you students are too young to recall those were the Bush years. Back when he and his cohorts plunged this country into a near depression that took the Dems eight years to rectify. Since then it has been a prosperous time for all. Bush now resides in Toronto.

The charts on his wall are his own little political headquarter doings. He calls them Waggys Polls. Yes, all the Rep cadidates have high marks and the Dems are lagging far behind in his world. But it keeps him occupied and that's important in his delusional state of denial.-

No, he will never be well enough to be released but at least he can play on the internet a few hours a day.

Watch this the orderlies are about to serve him Blue jello and kool aid. Funny isn't it. Quite.

[El D.]

Voting in self-interest might be what got us here in the first place.

"People will elect the government they deserve." as someone said, in some way or another.

Whats unfair is that all the civilians in other countries, that were killed/tortured so that we could run with this shit infrastructure, did not have a vote.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Gaines

Republican pres next election? In your dreams! There is no way. This country still hasn't got rid of the bad taste your ass clowns left behind from the Bush/Cheney debacle. What a joke. Your only hope of winning the white house is if Obama switches parties or maybe you think a Mitt/Sarah ticket will energize your party base. Yeah..surrrrre it will. You people are soooo out of touch with the voters it is pathetic. Keep dreaming.

This is nonsense. Two years after being elected the House reverted to Republican control. The Senate would have been at the very least split, if some of the "characters" that the Tea Party put up like Angle and O'Donnell had lost their primary runs. Barack Obama's saving grace is the lackluster bunch vying for the Republican nomination at this point. They're all either nuts, boring, crooked or imbeciles. Barack Obama is RIPE for plucking, and this ridiculous assertion that the bad taste lingers (after the Dems got TROUNCED in 2010) illustrates what an out of touch "homer" you are. You like to push people around, I guess it works for you, but it doesn't make you right and it doesn't mean you have a clue.

[vampyre_smiles]

Here's an idea: Don't vote for either of the big parties. Power corrupts, and they've both had the power for a long time in the US. Vote for ANYONE but the Republicans or Democrats. Hell, get a good mix in there so no one group has all the power.

[El D.]

Originally Posted by vampyre_smiles

Here's an idea: Don't vote for either of the big parties. Power corrupts, and they've both had the power for a long time in the US. Vote for ANYONE but the Republicans or Democrats. Hell, get a good mix in there so no one group has all the power.

I wish this were easier in US politics.

Its all about money though. Independents aren't fueled by this thing in capitalism they refer to as 'incentive', which is just a glorified word for greed, or money if you would go so far to say.

Its all money, all the time. And voters... ugh I dont know what to say about them. So many are chasing social acceptance like a carrot on a stick.

Is it frightening to anyone else that they use words in US politics like left and right? It bothers me because that is to say the metaphor lies in a single dimension, on a straight line. Imagine that. Politics - a straight line.

The world is not that simple damn it.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by El D.

I wish this were easier in US politics.

Its all about money though. Independents aren't fueled by this thing in capitalism they refer to as 'incentive', which is just a glorified word for greed, or money if you would go so far to say.

Money does play a massive part, but let's for a moment consider that a billionaire decides to take on the establishment and he gets elected under a third party banner. Who does he caucus with if he is in the House or Senate? If the guy is lucky enough to buy the presidency, which party does he side with to get his agenda accomplished?

Unfortunately, money is a part, but not the sum. The parties are entrenched. It will take a lot of effort to pry them out of power and to establish competing parties within our system. Those inclined to actually strike out and to plot their own course are usually hacks, rejects and disgruntled members of the established parties. We need to change the election process so that we have a ballot with many names on it, many parties represented and a process wherein we keep voting until one of them gets a majority percentage. We have the internet now, we can simplify the voting process to allow people to vote easily from home if they wish to. The way that power has been maintained is by limiting the number of people who vote. If people could vote from their smartphones etc., things might change. If we can bank, file our taxes etc electronically there is no reason why the greatest country in the world (IMHO... boo and hiss if you must), cannot adopt a method by which we can electronically vote. For those that say it would be rife with fraud, I offer up the last three or four elections, and the corporations that control our electoral process with their own machinery which doesn't seem to have ANY checks and balances and doesn't even provide a paper trail in some cases.

Whew... sorry, end of rant :P

[El D.]

Originally Posted by Justice

Unfortunately, money is a part, but not the sum. The parties are entrenched. It will take a lot of effort to pry them out of power and to establish competing parties within our system. Those inclined to actually strike out and to plot their own course are usually hacks, rejects and disgruntled members of the established parties. We need to change the election process so that we have a ballot with many names on it, many parties represented and a process wherein we keep voting until one of them gets a majority percentage. We have the internet now, we can simplify the voting process to allow people to vote easily from home if they wish to. The way that power has been maintained is by limiting the number of people who vote. If people could vote from their smartphones etc., things might change. If we can bank, file our taxes etc electronically there is no reason why the greatest country in the world (IMHO... boo and hiss if you must), cannot adopt a method by which we can electronically vote. For those that say it would be rife with fraud, I offer up the last three or four elections, and the corporations that control our electoral process with their own machinery which doesn't seem to have ANY checks and balances and doesn't even provide a paper trail in some cases.

Whew... sorry, end of rant :P

Nah no need to apologize, completely agreed. I suppose I was referring more to the problem than solution, but you're right. It's going to take a lot more than money to fix things, but what will ultimately fix things is free. I can promise you that.

Originally Posted by Justice

This is nonsense. Two years after being elected the House reverted to Republican control. The Senate would have been at the very least split, if some of the "characters" that the Tea Party put up like Angle and O'Donnell had lost their primary runs. Barack Obama's saving grace is the lackluster bunch vying for the Republican nomination at this point. They're all either nuts, boring, crooked or imbeciles. Barack Obama is RIPE for plucking, and this ridiculous assertion that the bad taste lingers (after the Dems got TROUNCED in 2010) illustrates what an out of touch "homer" you are. You like to push people around, I guess it works for you, but it doesn't make you right and it doesn't mean you have a clue.

Of course it's nonsense. That's why it is so easy to be a democrat - they don't pay any attention to reality. Need money? Print it. Need more? Take it from people. Need more? Borrow it knowing you can't ever pay it back. How do you cut the deficit? Increase spending. How do you lower gas prices? Raise taxes on gasoline.

Even after the worst mid-term defeat in the past 70 years, the democrats are still wearing their blinders. Even though their president has a 31% approval on the economy - and a 43% overall approval they think he is going to waltz in and be reelected. Even though There has only been one time in history that a president has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.2% - they think he is a shoe-in when we have 9% unemployment.

That's all right. They are delusional. They still support a president that is the laughing stock of the world and despised by 60% of his own people.

It's possible could buy another election. That's still an unknown. He is going to have $5 billion avaible and that goes far beyond what has ever been used to buy a presidency before. We are on new ground with a corrupt president willing to take this much money from people to buy his job back.

[Justice]

What's hilarious is, I hear Obama and Democrats screaming about the Citizens United case, while at the same time holding a hand out to collect the checks. Who got the most money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Hmmm... let's see... Dodd, Obama and Kerry... the supposed watchdogs. In 2008 when Goldman Sachs was imploding and needed to be bailed out by their boy Paulson, who did they give the most money to? That would be Barack Obama. I really cannot fathom how anybody, on either side, can point fingers and declare, "Your guys are killing us!" Guess what folks... they're all killing us. I might agree with the conservative ideals that some candidates purport to support, but when it comes down to brass tacks, they're all about maintaining their power. Give all of them the same amount of money (paid by the taxpayers to a general fund... so we all get REPRESENTED) and allow for a truly level playing field in our electoral process. If you want to exercise your first amendment rights in support of a candidate, do so... ON YOUR OWN. Corporations are not PEOPLE, and they do not deserve first amendment protections where it concerns the political process.

I just have no idea how we are ever going to get any of this fixed with housing in the gutter, commodities through the roof and unemployment being this high. The stimulus created an entirely new welfare state, and as the funds dried up, so did the "beneficial" effects. Wonderful.

Punish the banks. They should collect NO interest on ANY portion of a loan in excess of what a house is worth. Make the people who helped to bring this pain, PAY. Instead, we allowed them to collect their profits from the creation of crap loans, then we bailed out the banks and their bad debt with taxpayer dollars. Now, 30% of homeowners are underwater because of the huge inventories caused by this mess, and they're still paying INTEREST and are at the same time, on the hook for the stimulus?! WHAT THE FUCK!

I'm pissed off, if you hadn't guessed.

[El D.]

Originally Posted by gary_wagner

Of course it's nonsense. That's why it is so easy to be a democrat - they don't pay any attention to reality. Need money? Print it. Need more? Take it from people. Need more? Borrow it knowing you can't ever pay it back. How do you cut the deficit? Increase spending. How do you lower gas prices? Raise taxes on gasoline.

Even after the worst mid-term defeat in the past 70 years, the democrats are still wearing their blinders. Even though their president has a 31% approval on the economy - and a 43% overall approval they think he is going to waltz in and be reelected. Even though There has only been one time in history that a president has been reelected with an unemployment rate above 7.2% - they think he is a shoe-in when we have 9% unemployment.

That's all right. They are delusional. They still support a president that is the laughing stock of the world and despised by 60% of his own people.

It's possible could buy another election. That's still an unknown. He is going to have $5 billion avaible and that goes far beyond what has ever been used to buy a presidency before. We are on new ground with a corrupt president willing to take this much money from people to buy his job back.

If I am not mistaken it was a democrat that last balanced the budget.

Originally Posted by Justice

Punish the banks. They should collect NO interest on ANY portion of a loan in excess of what a house is worth. Make the people who helped to bring this pain, PAY. Instead, we allowed them to collect their profits from the creation of crap loans, then we bailed out the banks and their bad debt with taxpayer dollars. Now, 30% of homeowners are underwater because of the huge inventories caused by this mess, and they're still paying INTEREST and are at the same time, on the hook for the stimulus?! WHAT THE FUCK!

I hear that. Ughh it is nauseating. I dont want to go too far into this tirade, but in a fractional reserve banking system it is incredibly unfair that they are allowed to do that. They do not deserve that money because it was never fucking theirs to lend.

Originally Posted by El D.

If I am not mistaken it was a democrat that last balanced the budget.

Yes, you are mistaken. It was a republican congress that balanced the budget.

[El D.]

Originally Posted by gary_wagner

Yes, you are mistaken. It was a republican congress that balanced the budget.

Fair enough. I am all for fiscal conservatism. Dont get me wrong. We need that right now, but I don't see the republican party as much aligned with it as you perhaps. Bush was, fiscally if not otherwise, the worst republican president, ever. He spent more than any of the others, trampled american freedoms, and yanked the public around like a disobedient dog on a leash. You may praise his tax breaks for the upper eschelons, but Gaines is right about his admin. The things they turned a blind eye to were gory, oppressive, and utterly horrid, and no I am not talking about 9/11. That's a can of worms I'll save for a different fishing trip.

Did you find the video where he made a comment to the female reporter who asked him about Blackwater? I'm serious. I'll find it for you later if you haven't.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by El D.

Did you find the video where he made a comment to the female reporter who asked him about Blackwater? I'm serious. I'll find it for you later if you haven't.

I watched that video. I think Bush handled himself well, he didn't know, and said he didn't know. I actually liked his candor even if it was telling. He came off as exceedingly HUMAN, which his critics loathed and continue to loathe. When Barack Obama doesn't know, we get equally absurd uhhhhhs and uhhhhmmmms, followed by rambling bits of nonsense, and if pressed, a pledge to empanel a commission to investigate/look into, it.

I hated that we diminished our military by sending in goons, but what that has to do with what we're talking about is beyond me. I still want to see KBR indicted for: a. substandard provisions for our troops and b. refusing to deliver supplies to a war zone when our warriors were depending on them. Privatization of war, is bad. I just don't see what it has to do with this, at all... beyond the obvious time waster that is finger pointing. I am just so sick of it. We point and we argue the past... at the cost of the present and the future. Obama is here and now. Boehner is here and now. These are the people in charge, and they're two of lousiest leaders this country has had in a long, long, time. Worse than Bush? Yes. Why? Because Bush was slated an imbecile. Barack Obama is supposedly a scholar, a learned man, the rudder that was supposed to right this ship. Not since New Coke, has there been a more disappointing launch to an American enterprise.

[El D.]

Originally Posted by Justice

I watched that video. I think Bush handled himself well, he didn't know, and said he didn't know. I actually liked his candor even if it was telling. He came off as exceedingly HUMAN, which his critics loathed and continue to loathe. When Barack Obama doesn't know, we get equally absurd uhhhhhs and uhhhhmmmms, followed by rambling bits of nonsense, and if pressed, a pledge to empanel a commission to investigate/look into, it.

My qualm is not in that he didn't know. It is that he tried to make it humorous and laughed.

I agree with you about privatization, except you aren't seeing the connection as I am it seems. It's all money, simple as that. All of these economics are connected, and the past is a critical component of both the present and the future.

Originally Posted by Justice

Why? Because Bush was slated an imbecile. Barack Obama is supposedly a scholar, a learned man, the rudder that was supposed to right this ship. Not since New Coke, has there been a more disappointing launch to an American enterprise.

But THIS. Whoa there. School isnt going to teach these things though. School in this country is more about regurgitation than thinking. There have been some devastingly dark launches of American enterprise since, I can assure you. I think Obama is an economic imbecile too, or like Gary says he is just trying to buy his office without regard to the people, but see, at least from what I can see, he isnt killing for it. But then again, I was oblivious to all of these horrors that occured during the Bush era at the time.

So maybe thats why we debate the past. We are just now seeing the tip of the iceburg, months, even years, after we ran this ship right into it.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by El D.

The past is a critical component of both the present and the future.

I agree, when it's relevant and productive. The kind of childish finger pointing that some choose to engage in is neither relevant OR productive. The past that we need to be examining is the relevant past. Do Keynesian economic policies really work, or has this stimulus blunted the pain and just delayed the inevitable? Recessions in this country last, on the average, two years (relevant history). The last substantive recession occurred during Carter, and when we emerged, the economy was growing at a rate of 7.1% (relevant history). Last quarter the economy grew at I believe 1.8% and all of a sudden we're seeing a marked slowdown, with housing being pummeled and weekly unemployment numbers that are moving in the wrong direction. If we're going to examine the past, then let us please look at economic policies that have been employed to fix these kinds of issues, and let us know well enough to abandon those policies that are ineffective.

I don't have a beef with you, and while you are likely a liberal and I am a conservative I think that we would agree on a great many things. As people, I would hope that we would have the depth of understanding to see that there isn't a particular boogeyman where it concerns the topic at hand (the economy). The government has been passing the buck and avoiding tough decisions for a very, very long time. Worse still, I don't think that there is anybody in government that has the SPINE necessary to look at this issue, to see the dire circumstance and to act with conviction and disregard for their own political fortunes. We need a leader, and I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, the pickings where it concerns the current crop, are slim. In addition, the electorate seems unwilling to make concessions where it concerns their own ideology. As a conservative, I dare not mention cuts in military spending... but I cannot help but see it as a fatted calf that should be looked at. Are there liberals willing to accept that social programs, entitlements, etc also need to be looked at? Politics has become an all or nothing proposition, and it has made compromise nigh impossible.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by El D.

I think Obama is an economic imbecile too, or like Gary says he is just trying to buy his office without regard to the people, but see, at least from what I can see, he isnt killing for it. But then again, I was oblivious to all of these horrors that occured during the Bush era at the time.

On this point, can we agree that Barack Obama has done next to nothing different where it concerns detainees and the prosecution of the two wars we were in under Bush? If we can agree on that, then I have to wonder where the distinction lies, and further, why it is that the media has not employed the same kind of incendiary rhetoric towards Obama that they did W. Obama may have stopped enhanced interrogation, but supposed innocents are still being killed, and we are still spending lots of money on conflicts that he said he would not vote to fund if elected to the Senate.

As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush.


"When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Of course, when he got elected, he funded the wars... because he supports the troops (ah what a flag waver). Similarly, Gitmo survives, troops remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, and withdrawals have been renamed reductions.



They're all liars. They're all opportunists. When real decisions have to be made, convictions fall to the wayside. We get the leadership we deserve in this country.

Originally Posted by El D.

Fair enough. I am all for fiscal conservatism. Dont get me wrong. We need that right now, but I don't see the republican party as much aligned with it as you perhaps. Bush was, fiscally if not otherwise, the worst republican president, ever. He spent more than any of the others, trampled american freedoms, and yanked the public around like a disobedient dog on a leash. You may praise his tax breaks for the upper eschelons, but Gaines is right about his admin. The things they turned a blind eye to were gory, oppressive, and utterly horrid, and no I am not talking about 9/11. That's a can of worms I'll save for a different fishing trip.

Did you find the video where he made a comment to the female reporter who asked him about Blackwater? I'm serious. I'll find it for you later if you haven't.

I really don't care what he did or didn't say to a reporter when he was president. He isn't president.

He spent way too much money, that's for sure. I was protesting on tax independence day long before I became a racist because Obama became president. I have been involved with the tea party since 2005.

But, he isn't president. I don't care how bad he was because we have a president who is spending us into oblivion, has started a brand new war in Libya, has escalated the war in Afghanistan when we shouldn't be there any more at all, and is letting Iran build nuclear weapons so they can destroy the middle east and half of the oil supply in the world.

The republican party strayed away from the fiscal conservative principles. They paid a huge price for that in 2006, and an even bigger one in 2008. When they started getting back toward those roots - they absolutely destroyed the democrats in 2010.

They are a horrible bunch of corrupt spend-thrift ninnies. But like I have said many times, "There is nothing in the world worse than a repubilican - except a democrat". No matter how bad they have gotten with spending, they are nowhere near the $2 trillion per year deficit that the democrats have run since Obama came into office. They were also nowhere near the $1 trillion per year deficits when Nancy took over in 2007.

So as bad as the republicans are, and as bad as Bush was, they are nowhere nearly as bad as the democrats are now. The question that has finally been answered by 2 years of Obama is, "What could possibly be worse than Bush? " Now we know. Obama.

[Gaines]

You want a two year fix on an eight year fuck up. Typical agenda crap as always. But you are right about the Rep party offering nothing for a presidential candidate...that should tell you how lacking they really are. It shows.

Yeah, reps created a balanced budget..tell the rest of the story. Let me save you the time trouble. Had they not they would have eaten every bit of legislation they trotted out. Clinton would have vetoed them into oblivion. They knew it because he made no bones about it. It's good to be king when you have the veto at your disposal. And after the budget was balanced it went right out the window on Lil' George's watch. Nice job homer.

You are the last person that should be talking about the war in the East. You haven't a clue why we are there. Not one.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Gaines

You want a two year fix on an eight year fuck up. Typical agenda crap as always.

Actually, the "fuck up", is a snowball. This started with the dotcom dump. Ever since, we have been applying bandaids, the last of which was low interest rates which spawned the real estate bubble, and worse, transferred wealth in equity from the middle class to the market. The person truly responsible for the nightmare we are in, is Greenspan.

The real estate bubble peaked in 2006... and then the prices started to plummet. The Democrats controlled the Congress at the time. Nancy Pelosi being the holder of the purse had from 2006 to 2010 to head off the problem or to deal with it. The wheels fell off in 2008 a year AFTER the bubble had been declared the biggest threat to our economy. I hold all of the people in power responsible. I think the banks have a hell of a lot of nerve calling themselves fiduciary entities, I have zero faith in them to do the right thing and to be responsible. That said, it is easy to point out the Dems like Frank and Schumer who denied there was even a problem, when Bush actually warned that FNMA and FHLMC needed to be looked at because they were holding way too much paper. He warned of that in 2005. Nobody is a hero here, but it is easy to see that people saw this coming and were either in denial or failed to act to resolve the issue. Both parties, the executive and legislative branches and the Fed... they're ALL to blame.

Agendas... yes, some of us have them... others just want this mess cleaned up.

PS. I have a question Gaines... if we go double dip in this recession, who is to blame? I'm just curious to know who it is that you hold responsible if the stimulus fails to maintain Obama's declared rebound.

[Rei]

Originally Posted by vampyre_smiles

Here's an idea: Don't vote for either of the big parties. Power corrupts, and they've both had the power for a long time in the US. Vote for ANYONE but the Republicans or Democrats. Hell, get a good mix in there so no one group has all the power.

That certainly sounds like a nice idea. I can't speak for how it would work in the US, even if you did have enough choices, the way we do in Canada. Depending on where you live, there are four or five parties with candidates from a specific party, and maybe an independent. We've had a minority government, meaning that no party holds more than half of the seats, for far too many years in a row and finally got a majority government. As a result, very little got done.

The opposition parties (mainly Liberal and NDP) spent more time trying to bring down the Conservatives than they did trying to work with them. We had an election that nobody but the government wanted because the opposition parties were unwilling to work with the Tories to find comprimises in the budget. So instead of people who depend on government-based programs getting SOMETHING, millions were spent on an election hardly anyone wanted, and the Liberals, who were trying to hard to get the majority, went from having about a hundred seats (I think) to less than forty. And who did the people who once voted liberal vote for instead? Conservative and NDP.

[Gaines]

Originally Posted by Justice

Actually, the "fuck up", is a snowball. This started with the dotcom dump. Ever since, we have been applying bandaids, the last of which was low interest rates which spawned the real estate bubble, and worse, transferred wealth in equity from the middle class to the market. The person truly responsible for the nightmare we are in, is Greenspan.
************************************************** **
When did Greenspan deregulate the housing insurance agency? That's your "snowball."


PS. I have a question Gaines... if we go double dip in this recession, who is to blame? I'm just curious to know who it is that you hold responsible if the stimulus fails to maintain Obama's declared rebound.

************************************************** **

You.

Originally Posted by Gaines

You want a two year fix on an eight year fuck up.

Correction: two year fuck-up. That fuck-up had two names: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That fuck-up had a definition - socialist experiments. That fuck-up had an expected result - near total collapse of the US economy.

Take a look back at the economy on the day your darling democrats took control of the house and senate. They caused this recession in less than 2 years. If Obama can't fix it in less than 2 years then he is worse than they are - and they are absolutely pathetic.

Clinton put us into a recession, Bush brought us out. Osama put us into a recession, Bush brought us out. Nancy Pelosi put us in a recession and Obama made it worse. 'Nuff said. End of story. Obama is a failure.

[Gaines]

That "fuck-up" was eight years of your boy George and his daddys cronies...Bussssh.

[Rei]

Yeah, but Bush is a white Republican.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Rei

Yeah, but Bush is a white Republican.

A poll taken this month shows 59% of Americans disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy. Are they all racists, too? I want to believe that you're better than this comment.

[Gaines]

Fifty nine percent seems low considering how many folks expect an immediate fix to the economic crisis. But now with the house under republican control I feel sure they will soon have us on the road to recovery. We can hardly wait.

We would all like to believe racism plays no part in our lives. Surrrrrre.

[Justice]

I didn't say it plays no part, I just think it's absolutely pathetic when somebody uses such an ugly tact to explain away the truth of the matter. Where it concerns the deficit the disapproval number is at 67%. Two of three people polled were racists... the bastards! I don't see anybody in a leadership position tackling this issue... Democrat or Republican. What I do see is Obama going to his Bush-esque crony Jeff Immelt for some more advice... which will likely be to subsidize a green scam that GE is heavily invested in.

Originally Posted by Gaines

Fifty nine percent seems low considering how many folks expect an immediate fix to the economic crisis. But now with the house under republican control I feel sure they will soon have us on the road to recovery. We can hardly wait.

We would all like to believe racism plays no part in our lives. Surrrrrre.

We'd already be there but Obama hasn't signed any of their bills yet.

There is a new official definion of racist according to the democratic party:

Racist:

1. Repbulicans
2. Independents who do not vote for Obama
3. Democrats who do not worship Obama
4. White people
5. Black people who fall into categories 1, 2, 3, or 4.
6. Jewish people
7. Libertarians
8. Conservative democrats
9. Evangelical Christians
10. Any candidate running against Obama for anything

[Justice]

Obama knows where his bread is buttered...

For all of the talk about how things were going to be different, how the Democrats are about the common, working man... we see the reality of it illustrated in deed. Wall Street (up until this month) has been "winning" where it concerns Obama economic policies (because they got all the cash). Now, it's time for Obama to get paid, and he has his hand out and his nose firmly up the ass of the big cash donors who have helped to demolish this country. He may be half black. He may be from humble beginnings... but there is nothing unique to Barack Obama where it concerns his political pandering. Hope and change... maybe it should have been, hope he changes? Unfortunately, we're all suckers... and we're all dupes... and we all get, the government we deserve. The greatest theft from the middle class ... ever ... and people actually try to paint Obama as heroic. Nonsense.

[El D.]

They are all in each other's pockets. We are at the hands of an economic war between two elitist parties and of little consequence.

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
-George Washington

He was a fortune teller.