FOUR MORE YEARS

Happy Monkey;837789 wrote:

There'll be recounts, I'm sure.

Ibby;837816 wrote:

Honestly, this election marks a new mandate for liberalism, even if the House is still Republican.

Adak;837823 wrote:

The President may need Romney's prayers. I expect the investigation into the abandonment of our Ambassador to be killed by the terrorists, (that Obama refers to as "folks"), can now begin.

First things first, however. Obama needs to take another world-wide tour, so he can apologize for our freedoms and success, all over again.
[ATTACH]41584[/ATTACH]


It will be interesting to see how Obamacare shakes out in the next four years.

The second term for a President is always tougher than their first term. Other party members give less support, since the current President can't run again - that leaves other Democrats to be more independent of the President's wishes.

No one is going to support anymore 1 Trillion+ deficit years from Obama, so I don't know what he's going to do:

1) Blame Bush (worked before!)
2) Blame the Republicans (they won't let him do his crazy shit, anymore)
3) Blame the Rich
4) Blame the Whites
5) Blame the Dog (I can't pass a budget in the last few year, because the dog keeps eating it!).

Obama has no plans for the economy. I wonder if the American economy can overcome that handicap or not, and return us to prosperity, anyway?

Griff;837822 wrote:

Nah, Obama was the more centrist, he won. Mitt lost because he was disconnected from reality, said crazy shit, and didn't seem trust-worthy. If the GOP figures out how to put up middle right candidates (Huntsman) they'll get their mojo back. I'm guessing they'll double down on crazy in four years, so if Hillary continues to do a nice job...

Anyway, I'm not so much happy that Obama won as Mitt lost. Unfortunately its ideology first for the House Republicans so expect a bumpy ride.

glatt wrote:

I'm pleased that Obama won, and doubly pleased that he won the popular vote too. But I think it's a mistake to assume there is a liberal mandate. The vote nationwide is apparently 50.1% to 48.4%. That's close, and is not a mandate.

But it's clear that there is some serious work ahead with the fiscal cliff fast approaching, and both parties need to work together. That's something all Americans want government to do. There's going to have to be some compromises from both sides to get this done. And I'm mostly looking at the Republicans, because they have been unwilling to compromise at all on anything.

BigV;837784 wrote:

Congratulations America!

infinite monkey;837832 wrote:

Why DO conservatives whine so much? :rolleyes:

jimhelm;837850 wrote:

ok, change your fucking signature now

jimhelm;837850 wrote:

ok, change your fucking signature now

Spexxvet;837870 wrote:

To Republicans: America has spoken. You failed in your goal to make Obama a one term president. Now it's time to do your fucking job.

Spexxvet;837870 wrote:

To Republicans: America has spoken. You failed in your goal to make Obama a one term president. Now it's time to do your fucking job.

Adak;837823 wrote:

First things first, however. Obama needs to take another world-wide tour, so he can apologize for our freedoms and success, all over again.

Trilby;837874 wrote:

My sister lives in Boehner country. They're all weirdly stepford wife-ish soccer moms ...

BigV;837867 wrote:

You want the OBAMA 2012 one back? That surprises me.

I could go with Clinton/Huntsman 2016 if you like.

I like my fucking signature, so, eat a dick.

infinite monkey;837832 wrote:

:lol:

Boy's got a personality like his grapes: sour, that is. /foghornleghorn

Why DO conservatives whine so much? :rolleyes:

infinite monkey;837947 wrote:

Because I am equally exhausted by his gloom and doom and your nay-saying. ;)

infinite monkey;837943 wrote:

To Adak and henry:

:blah:



<Obama's good ideas for America, are in here, in bold blue letters! >









:lol:

Adak;837948 wrote:

Do you honestly believe that Obama will now be able to productively work with both parties? :p: :rolleyes:

Not a chance! He will be able to work productively with SOME of the members of his own party, and that's it.

Adak wrote:

[quote=infinite monkey]
To Adak and henry:

:blah:







<Obama's good ideas for America, are in here, in bold blue letters! >






:lol:

BigV;837996 wrote:

So clever.

Remember how upset you were when in the third debate Obama replied to Romney's observations of our naval strength? You're playing with the same fire here. Your misquoting here for humorous effect opens you up to the same treatment; you probably won't like it. But more importantly, it is another example of your willingness to just make shit up whenever it suits you, facts be damned. Don't be upset when adults who are talking about real issues ignore or reprimand you for childish interruptions like this.

Adak;838016 wrote:

I see today, that the DOW industrial average celebrated Obama's victory, by losing 314 points!

The "Obama Effect" is already in full swing! Pardon me while I dance on my ceiling. ;)

BTW German projections for their economy is a very tepid 0.5% growth -- but Socialism is what Obama is directing us toward -- whoopee!

Adak;838016 wrote:

I see today, that the DOW industrial average celebrated Obama's victory, by losing 314 points!

The "Obama Effect" is already in full swing! [COLOR="DarkRed"]Pardon me while I dance on my ceiling. ;)[/COLOR]
<snip>

Lamplighter;838021 wrote:

How to win friends and influence people...

Adek's (and his ilk) reveal their true nature in remarks like this.

Stormieweather;837977 wrote:

Obama can work just as well with Congress and House as Romney could have if he'd been elected. It all depends on whether the OTHER participants wish to work towards a solution instead of behave like a spoiled toddlers.

Adak;838015 wrote:

When you wake up enough to grasp the concept that a naval vessel in the Pacific, is useless for an immediate problem in the Mediterranean, then you'll grasp what I was referring to about Obama cutting down the number of naval ships we have.

--snip

Adak;838015 wrote:

Until then, it will fly right over your head.

Adak;838024 wrote:

If the friends I win, want to drive me into a car accident, I would be wise to win other friends, safer driving, friends.
~snip~
So the Senators and Representatives should all fall in step with Obama, even though he's now brought us up to a stunning 16 Trillion dollars of debt, and lead us into an incredibly slow recovery ?

The idea that they should do what's right for the country, shouldn't be an issue?

Adak;838015 wrote:

snip--

I'm sure you could name, five (just five) specific plans that Obama will be implementing in this next term, surely?

OBAMA: I'm asking you to rally not around me, but rally around a set of goals for our country in manufacturing and education and energy, national security, reducing the deficit.

First, export more products and outsource fewer jobs.

Second, control more of our own energy.

Third, give more Americans the chance to get the skills that they need to compete.

Fourth, reduce the deficit without sticking it to the middle class.

Fifth, strong national security, smart foreign policy.

Adak;838015 wrote:

Perhaps because Obama NEVER NAMED five specific plans for his second term, throughout his campaign.

Adak;838016 wrote:

I see today, that the DOW industrial average celebrated Obama's victory, by losing 314 points!

The "Obama Effect" is already in full swing! Pardon me while I dance on my ceiling. ;)

--snip

Two months into Barack Obama’s tenure, the index reached its low point, slumping to 6,547 in March 2009.

[ATTACH]41602[/ATTACH]

But then something interesting happened: Just a few weeks after Obama signed his stimulus package, the Dow began to rise. Sure, it was herky-jerky, but under our supposedly socialistic president, we’ve seen the Dow go up around 5,000 points from the beginning of his term.

SamIam;838028 wrote:

Heck, I wouldn't mind an opponent who just knew where he'd been and which way he was going. You and many others on the far right want to over simplify the problem and avoid admitting to any Republican responsibility for the current fiscal mess. It's so much more satisfying to just turn the president into the boogie man (he IS black, after all).

Say, remember that dufus we had for a president at the time of 9/11? Remember how we had a budget surplus when he came into office? Do you recall how he pushed a bunch of tax cuts through Congress while at the same time embroiling this country in an extremely expensive war without a single qualm about how much the bill would be and how it would be paid when it came due?

I guess since it was a Republican administration that pulled off this nasty little trick, they were doing "what was right for the country" even if it didn't look that way either then or now.

BigV;838030 wrote:

So, you're saying that Obama's responsible for what happens on the DOW Jones Industrial Average? Ok.

And another 1,500 points on top of that since the publication of this article.

I got your "Obama effect" hangin' right here, punk.

First, export more products and outsource fewer jobs.

Second, control more of our own energy.

Third, give more Americans the chance to get the skills that they need to compete.

Fourth, reduce the deficit without sticking it to the middle class.

Fifth, strong national security, smart foreign policy.

BigV;838027 wrote:

When you confess to your dishonesty of putting words in the President's mouth by saying that he "used that as a defense in the debate", then you'll grasp what *he* was saying about Romney's statement about the number of ships in the navy. Or not.

It was a lie when you said it the first time, it's still a lie now. Changing the subject didn't work before, and won't work now. You've shown your devotion to that position despite how wrong it is. Every time you bring it up, I'll knock it down.

Misquoting, putting words in people's mouths, lying, these are the actions of the ignorant, the malicious, of people who have no interest much less respect for the truth. I think you are a bit of all three. Our dialog will improve dramatically when you clean up your act in this regard.

Adak;838051 wrote:

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

glatt;838060 wrote:

Dude, YOU have no tactical sense. How many oceans are there? How many ships do we have? How many ships per ocean?

I assure you, we don't have just one ship.

Don't make me find that chart that's been floating all over the web of our navy's size compared to the navies of all the countries of the rest of the world.

piercehawkeye45;838071 wrote:

And how would we do that? Bringing down the deficit isn't a intuitive task. Right now we spend more on the three things that both parties refuse to cut (Social Security, Medicare, and Defense) than the revenue we bring in each year.

Adak;838051 wrote:

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

Adak;838051 wrote:

I don't blame Obama for the fiscal mess we were in when he was sworn in -- not at all.

What I do blame him for, is his fiscal actions and policies, since he became President.



I'm well aware of Bush's policies - he was a social conservative, but a fiscal big spender. :mad: More importantly, had he recognized the impending crisis earlier, he could have helped us avoid more of it.


Let's not forget our mistakes, let's learn from them. Bush was a big spender, and it was a mistake. Obama is a bigger spender, and it's a mistake.

Let's stop the big spending, already - there are a number of fiscal calamities that await us, if we don't use common sense, and STOP the massive over-spending!

Should someone mention to our hero that maybe he should pay the same amount of taxes that he paid back in 1999 and the mouth of hell opens up and a million tea party members boil out to take a stand on his behalf.

SamIam;838144 wrote:

First of all, you don't have to yell at me. I'm right in front of my computer screen and I can hear you just fine.

You can't have it both ways. You can't post that everything is Obama's fault and then flip flop when soneone calls you out on your rhetoric. Your reasoning could stand some improvement, as well.

"Overspending! Massive overspending!" You admit that Bush started it

and then continue to mindlessly bash Obama and blame the entire deficit on Obama's spending problem

without addressing the fact that Obama also has an income problem since the wealthy seem to think that they'd have to go live in a park and be homeless if they had to pay taxes at the rate they did before W. rescued them from their tax induced lives of poverty. :right:

Get honest. You'd buy the navy a thousand aircraft carriers it didn't need before you'd hand a hungry child a dollar to buy a loaf of bread. In fact, you'd probably tell the that kid he needed to give the dollar to the Navy to help build carrier number one thousand one.

The issue that needs to be addressed here is why it is now to the nation's benefit for one ever more elite group is to continue to shirk all reponsibility while enriching themselves at the expense of the rest? Like the CEO of a large financial corporation who gave free rein to the morgage party gang that worked in his department. The Corporation would have gone tits up, but thank god for Uncle Sugar. And thank god for the tireless ants who make an honest if simple living and actually contribute to the greater good rather than stealing from it. Because Uncle Sugar grabs some cash from the ants and goes bail for the Corporation.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Corporation, fresh from the bail bonds office, orders the sleaze bag CEO into the office. But, far from firing him or better yet - filing charges against him - the Corporation gives him a $121 MILLION$$$$$$ annual bonus for carrying his job out at "a difficult time." Should someone mention to our hero that maybe he should pay the same amount of taxes that he paid back in 1999 and the mouth of hell opens up and a million tea party members boil out to take a stand on his behalf.

So greed is no longer a sin. These days it has become a patriotic duty to accept offerings from the masses because this will create more jobs that you can then outsource to Katmandu. Oh, and don't forget the "illegal alien" who gets hired on as the third gardener on your million acre estate. So, let's all whistle the "Star Spangled Banner," as we walk into our offshore bank.

Obama’s supporters claim the worst is over, and the best is yet to come.

Such clichés patronise not merely the American public who, by re-electing him, have chosen the soft option rather than a confrontation with economic reality. They also patronise a substantial part of the developed world that, even if it no longer looks to America for political leadership, relies for its standard of living on the US being economically strong.

On the evidence of the past four years, notably Mr Obama’s record of serial economic incompetence, the next four are going to be exceptionally trying – and, sadly, not just for Americans.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2229512/US-Presidential-Election-2012-New-dawn-This-looks-like-new-dusk.html#ixzz2Bfq6SM00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Adak;838187 wrote:

NO! Obama put in 780+ Billion into a stimulus package. What do we have to show for this?

jimhelm;838147 wrote:

nicked from fred's myface feed:
[ATTACH]41609[/ATTACH]

tw;838196 wrote:

One by one. The money is being paid back with interest. What do we have to show for it? Profits. And we averted a 40% unemployment. Why do you routinely ignore facts? Limbaugh did not mention those profits?

That's what they lead you to believe, but unfortunately, the Feds own a lot of stock, also. To just break even, the price per share of GM stock would have to approximately double.

The previous pay back they gave us so quickly, was actually another loan - so they were able to make Obama look good, by paying us back -- *with interest*, with our own money.

Fact is, the Volt is a colossal failure, since it isn't a hybrid, and has such a limited range. Now it's range is up to 38 whole miles -- whoopee! That's with brand new batteries, of course.

Where is the spending? Drug prices in America (and charged to government perscription plans) are 40% higher in America. Thanks to corporate welfare laws passed by George Jr that add another $1trillion of debt in ten years. Did they forget to tell your that? Mission Accomplished: we have only just started to pay for that $3trillion fiasco. Did they forget to tell you that?

All conservatives are aware that Bush Jr. was a big spender - and not a fiscal conservative.

[quote]
Meanwhile, where is that 40% unemployment rate that was clearly defined in that meeting in 2007. The meeting that George Jr said, "I have lost control of this meeting" and then walked out. What happened to the 40% unemployment rate that left so many Senators and Representatives leaving that meeting with 'ghost faces'? Oh. They forgot to tell you about that.

Why do you routinely forget to the lessons from history. Limbaugh is not an honest source.

At least you stopped insulting people - somewhat.

Aliantha;838195 wrote:

Maybe if it appears both sides of the floor are guilty of overspending, it might be pertinent to re-assess how much it costs to run a country...

Adak;838235 wrote:

All conservatives are aware that Bush Jr. was a big spender - and not a fiscal conservative.

Adak;838187 wrote:

NO! Obama put in 780+ Billion into a stimulus package. What do we have to show for this?

wrote:

The Great Recession Would Have Been Even Worse without Financial Stabilization and Fiscal Stimulus Policies and GDP Would Have Been Lower Without the Recovery Act...

The Recovery Act was designed to boost the demand for goods and services above what it otherwise would be in order to preserve jobs in the recession and create them in the recovery. The Congressional Budget Office finds that GDP has been higher each year since 2009 than it would have been without the Recovery Act (with the largest impact in 2010 when GDP was between 0.7 and 4.1 percent higher than it otherwise would have been). The economy is still benefiting from the Recovery Act in 2012, although as expected that effect is diminishing as the economy grows; CBO estimates that GDP in the third quarter of 2012 was between 0.1 and 0.7 percent larger than it would have been without the Recovery Act.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that because of the Recovery Act, the unemployment rate has been lower each year since 2009 than it otherwise would have been. CBO estimates that in the third quarter of 2012 the unemployment rate was 0.1 to 0.5 percentage points lower than it otherwise would have been and employment was between 0.2 million and 0.9 million jobs greater than it otherwise would have been.

Adak wrote:

It isn't just the amount of money Obama has spent, it's where the money was spent. At least with Bush, the money went into good purposes - Prescription drug law, HUGE donation to fighting AIDS in Africa, fighting Saddam and Al Qaeda. You know what the money went for.

Adak wrote:

Lots of finance guys got away scot free, we know that. That is how justice is done in America, and doesn't have much to do with either political party.

Adak wrote:

You're drinking again or just being totally silly? Stop this nonsense

Adak wrote:

Oh yeah! I can see you've swallowed the "let's hate the rich" kool aid that the Democrats were selling.

Adak wrote:

Let's remember that if they take off for Singapore (or wherever), we will all be substantially poorer here. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office, as reported by The Washington Times, the wealthy pay 70% of all our federal income tax monies.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-share-taxes/

Might want to think twice before you throw em overboard

Urbane Guerrilla;840130 wrote:

"Pay Their Fair Share" is codespeak -- obfuscation if you'd rather -- for "legalize stealing it." It's an unsustainable shame. It will come to a bad end. Like as not, it will kill your pension as it does.

During fiscal year 2010, the PBGC paid $5.6 billion in benefits to participants of failed pension plans. That year, 147 pension plans failed, and the PBGC's deficit increased 4.5 percent to $23 billion. The PBGC has a total of $102.5 billion in obligations and $79.5 billion in assets.[3]

Urbane Guerrilla;840130 wrote:

"Pay Their Fair Share" is codespeak -- obfuscation if you'd rather -- for "legalize stealing it." It's an unsustainable shame. It will come to a bad end. Like as not, it will kill your pension as it does.

SamIam;840168 wrote:

It's always interesting to hear from one of the primodial ooze contingent.