Obama pre-super bowl interview

Obama On Being President: "You Get Better As Time Goes On" | RealClearPolitics
This segment of his interview solidifies what I have always suspected of Obama. It also makes me cringe to think that the guy could be re-elected. This is from MSNBC.com. I also provided the video of the interview so no one would say I made it up.
In a TODAY exclusive, Matt Lauer asked Obama about his supporters' disappointment over his first-term performance — that they believe he hasn't been "the transformational political figure they hoped you would be."
"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said.
"That's just the nature of being president," he said. "It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.
"What I'm going to just keep on doing is plodding away, very persistent. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on."
Wow. What we have here is a POTUS saying he should have more autocratic power over our legislature than he currently has and that he doesn't like the way the founders placed the Constitution in the way of him obtaining that power. If you don't take that from his interview, I'd like to hear what you do take from it. The last segment is the scariest one. This is just my opinion that I'm sure some will dismiss as rhetoric, and that's fine. But, the last sentence says to me that he will stop at nothing to get that power. No matter how long it takes, he will marginalize an already weak legislature by continuing to slowly but surely take power from them. If you don't believe that, look at his actions the last few months. He has appointed people without the legislative branch approving (labor board appointments). He has drawn up bills that give him more power (agency merging). He has dismissed any attempt to hold him to a standard as rhetoric (Keystone deadline). Its not that he didn't approve the Keystone pipeline. I don't agree with it, but its his right to do so as POTUS. But, he also had to add the quote that the deadline was "arbitrary". The guy has to go. If for anything, for his complete disregard for the things this country was founded upon. Many Presidents have worked within the parameters of the Constitution before, he should learn to do so as well. His failure to do so shows he is not up to the job.

Yes, that is just your opinion.

(and it's a ridiculous one)

Deuce said:

Yes, that is just your opinion.

(and it's a ridiculous one)

Click to expand...

I'd like to hear why you think that, not just that you think it. Thanks.

MarineTpartier said:

I'd like to hear why you think that, not just that you think it. Thanks.

Click to expand...

"it would be nice to get more things done" does not mean "I SHOULD BE GRANTED MORE POWER **** THE CONSTITUTION"

The legislative branch is the one trying to usurp express constitutional authority granted to the president - bull**** "sessions" in which congress is not actually in session with the express purpose of blocking recess appointments.

The keystone deadline was arbitrary and it wasn't Obama that killed it, congress did that themselves. They were flat-out told that more time was required to assess the environmental concerns and that if not enough time was granted, the decision would be no.

He doesn't deserve four more years, but he's going to win reelection if the Republican nominee is Romney.

johnny_rebson said:

He doesn't deserve four more years, but he's going to win reelection if the Republican nominee is Romney.

Click to expand...

but, he will win re-election if the Republican nominee is Gingrich, Paul or Santorium.... that presents a bit of a problem, if you are a Republican...

Obama 2012: He's Pretty Sure He's About Got This Thing Figured Out





:doh reminds one of Hillary's "2 a.m. phone call" commercials.

MarineTpartier said:

What we have here is a POTUS saying he should have more autocratic power over our legislature than he currently has and that he doesn't like the way the founders placed the Constitution in the way of him obtaining that power.

Click to expand...

He said nothing of the kind. Sheesh. Now I know how Republicans must have felt like when everybody tried to make Bush into the second coming of Hitler.

Obama is saying he, like many of his supporters, wishes change would happen faster than it is. He doesn't say or imply anything about changing the system the Founders devised--that's something you have read into his words based on the maniacal caricature Obama has become in the eyes of conservatives. Anybody with half a sense of impartiality would understand that Obama places more blame with those who are using the system to obstruct reform than the system itself, which serves an important purpose when used with the best interests of the country in mind. Obama states that he will keep "plodding away"---not that he will overthrow the government and institute some kind of autocracy.

It takes a lot to change a country when we are dealing with forces that will turn insignificant comments into declarations of treason. Jeez.

For people like the OP, Obama will never be acceptable. I believe they have a 'strawman' psychological defense mechanism that protects them from anything Obama says that they might agree with.

Obama: I love my country, my wife and family.

People like the OP: The nerve, he left out Jesus.

MarineTpartier said:

Obama On Being President: "You Get Better As Time Goes On" | RealClearPolitics
This segment of his interview solidifies what I have always suspected of Obama. It also makes me cringe to think that the guy could be re-elected. This is from MSNBC.com. I also provided the video of the interview so no one would say I made it up.
In a TODAY exclusive, Matt Lauer asked Obama about his supporters' disappointment over his first-term performance — that they believe he hasn't been "the transformational political figure they hoped you would be."
"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said.
"That's just the nature of being president," he said. "It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.
"What I'm going to just keep on doing is plodding away, very persistent. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on."
Wow. What we have here is a POTUS saying he should have more autocratic power over our legislature than he currently has and that he doesn't like the way the founders placed the Constitution in the way of him obtaining that power. If you don't take that from his interview, I'd like to hear what you do take from it. The last segment is the scariest one. This is just my opinion that I'm sure some will dismiss as rhetoric, and that's fine. But, the last sentence says to me that he will stop at nothing to get that power. No matter how long it takes, he will marginalize an already weak legislature by continuing to slowly but surely take power from them. If you don't believe that, look at his actions the last few months. He has appointed people without the legislative branch approving (labor board appointments). He has drawn up bills that give him more power (agency merging). He has dismissed any attempt to hold him to a standard as rhetoric (Keystone deadline). Its not that he didn't approve the Keystone pipeline. I don't agree with it, but its his right to do so as POTUS. But, he also had to add the quote that the deadline was "arbitrary". The guy has to go. If for anything, for his complete disregard for the things this country was founded upon. Many Presidents have worked within the parameters of the Constitution before, he should learn to do so as well. His failure to do so shows he is not up to the job.

Click to expand...

Man feels frustrated with job sometimes, wishes he could good accomplish more of what he wanted, wants more people to like his ideas, mans WANTS TO OVERTHROW GOVERNMENT!!!

MarineTpartier said:

Obama On Being President: "You Get Better As Time Goes On" | RealClearPolitics
This segment of his interview solidifies what I have always suspected of Obama. It also makes me cringe to think that the guy could be re-elected. This is from MSNBC.com. I also provided the video of the interview so no one would say I made it up.
In a TODAY exclusive, Matt Lauer asked Obama about his supporters' disappointment over his first-term performance — that they believe he hasn't been "the transformational political figure they hoped you would be."
"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said.
"That's just the nature of being president," he said. "It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.
"What I'm going to just keep on doing is plodding away, very persistent. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on."
Wow. What we have here is a POTUS saying he should have more autocratic power over our legislature than he currently has and that he doesn't like the way the founders placed the Constitution in the way of him obtaining that power. If you don't take that from his interview, I'd like to hear what you do take from it. The last segment is the scariest one. This is just my opinion that I'm sure some will dismiss as rhetoric, and that's fine. But, the last sentence says to me that he will stop at nothing to get that power. No matter how long it takes, he will marginalize an already weak legislature by continuing to slowly but surely take power from them. If you don't believe that, look at his actions the last few months. He has appointed people without the legislative branch approving (labor board appointments). He has drawn up bills that give him more power (agency merging). He has dismissed any attempt to hold him to a standard as rhetoric (Keystone deadline). Its not that he didn't approve the Keystone pipeline. I don't agree with it, but its his right to do so as POTUS. But, he also had to add the quote that the deadline was "arbitrary". The guy has to go. If for anything, for his complete disregard for the things this country was founded upon. Many Presidents have worked within the parameters of the Constitution before, he should learn to do so as well. His failure to do so shows he is not up to the job.

Click to expand...

Wow. I don't see how you came away with that interpretation at all. I see him basically explaining to his supporters and former supporters that he wasn't able to get everything he wanted due to the fact that our government is designed the way that it is. I don't see him disliking it or even disrespecting it. I think that in our current political climate, people have become so extremely partisan and hyperbolic that they take things out of context or interpret things in a completely bizarre way so that it fits with their agenda. Believe me, there are plenty of reasons to dislike Obama's policies or the things that he says, but this isn't one of those times. Considering that there really are so many things to criticize the man for, one would think that people wouldn't need to rely on whacked out interpretations like this.

Its not just the fact that he said this stuff. Its also his actions. The three instances I named are examples of how he is trying everything he can to usurp the Constitution. It's not partisan, its facts. Many like to immediately discount the other sides views as "partisan" or "rhetoric". Instead of that, look at the actions and words of Obama before you dismiss it. If Bush had done this, we'd have libs on here screaming about it. Gingrich mentions doing un-Constitutional things and libs jump on it (subpoeaing district court judges). But, its Obama and he's the Golden Goose of liberalism. Can't have libs criticizing the Golden Goose. I'll give more examples:
-Declared War on Lybia w/o Congressional approval- provision for 60 days if an attack on US land or forces. Article I Sec. 8
-Overthrew State governments with Stimulus Package-1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.” (In other words, screw the Governor. If he doesn't like it, we'll just work around him)
-Individual mandate with Obamacare
-Refusal to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (whether you agree with it or not, its still a law)
The list goes on and on. Citizens need to wake up to the fact that just because the POTUS does something you like, doesn't mean its right. You need to look at the other side of the coin. Everyone likes to scream about the way Rick Santorum would regulate what you do in your bedroom and throw gays to the wayside. But you don't hear those same people criticizing Obama for not enforcing the law of the land in that same arena. Whether we like it or not, DOMA is a law. He chooses not to enforce it. That's scary.

MarineTpartier:

Declared War on Lybia w/o Congressional approval...

Click to expand...

Not true, in fact, when were the troops deployed? Mohamar out is the result of U.S. providing logistical support for the citizens in Lybia who wanted him out.

Overthrew State governments with Stimulus Package-1607(b): "If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.” (In other words, screw the Governor. If he doesn't like it, we'll just work around him)

Click to expand...

Great since the stimulus was the parting effort of your former President to stave off the economic collapse caused by allowing the foxes to guard the hen house on Wall Street which the republican party made possible and still wants to return to. Also, it makes sense because some Governors don't give a da** about the people in the state and perhaps the legislature does have the peoples best interest in mind. That particular mechanism allows for the aide to be effected in that case.

Individual mandate with Obamacare

Click to expand...

What mandate? Universal healthcare should be a human right not some privilege for those that are able to afford it.

Refusal to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act ...

Click to expand...

HUH, the GOP and Rommy are railing on Obama because he believes Catholic Hospitals should provide contraceptives the same as secular hospitals and health care institutions. And their argument is that Obama wants the federal government in an individual's business wrt contraception and religious freedom... well, that quote speaks to the blatant hypocrisy.

amph said:

MarineTpartier:
Not true, in fact, when were the troops deployed? Mohamar out is the result of U.S. providing logistical support for the citizens in Lybia who wanted him out.

Click to expand...

Guess you missed the part where Marine aircraft where used to bomb Libya.

amph said:

Great since the stimulus was the parting effort of your former President to stave off the economic collapse caused by allowing the foxes to guard the hen house on Wall Street which the republican party made possible and still wants to return to. Also, it makes sense because some Governors don't give a da** about the people in the state and perhaps the legislature does have the peoples best interest in mind. That particular mechanism allows for the aide to be effected in that case.

Click to expand...

I love the way you assume I voted for Bush and that he is "my" President lol. Also,you need to check your facts. If you believe Obama has not enacted a stimulus since he's been in office, you aren't worth debating. Maybe you are confusing TARP with Obama's stimulus. Anyway, your argument proves my point that just because you like it, doesn't mean its right. Bush's stimulus could not be shoved down a governors throat like Obama's could. It didn't have the same verbage in it. To lean on the argument of "some Governors don't give a da** about the people in the state" doesn't allow the Fed to totally bypass the governor.

amph said:

What mandate? Universal healthcare should be a human right not some privilege for those that are able to afford it.

Click to expand...

How about the mandate that EVERYONE has to buy healthcare or pay a penalty. If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have issues. In addition, healthcare is not a right, its a privilege. I don't believe poor people should be turned away at the ER when they are dying of a gunshot wound. However, I also don't believe that a poor person should be able to come into Planned Parenthood and get an abortion on my dime either. There's a difference in needed healthcare and improving quality of life. I'm fine with providing a person with emergency care or much needed health care on my dime. Perfectly fine with that. However, I don't think I should have to pay for that person to come in and get routine check ups, a flu shot, etc. Those improve quality of life. Sorry, if you can't afford it, but that's the way it is.

amph said:

HUH, the GOP and Rommy are railing on Obama because he believes Catholic Hospitals should provide contraceptives the same as secular hospitals and health care institutions. And their argument is that Obama wants the federal government in an individual's business wrt contraception and religious freedom... well, that quote speaks to the blatant hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

DOMA is a law. Religious Freedom is a right. Both are something he should enforce, both are things he blantantly disregards. Catholics don't believe in contraception, he shouldn't try to force them to provide it. Plain and simple.

Deuce said:

"it would be nice to get more things done" does not mean "I SHOULD BE GRANTED MORE POWER **** THE CONSTITUTION"

The legislative branch is the one trying to usurp express constitutional authority granted to the president - bull**** "sessions" in which congress is not actually in session with the express purpose of blocking recess appointments.

The keystone deadline was arbitrary and it wasn't Obama that killed it, congress did that themselves. They were flat-out told that more time was required to assess the environmental concerns and that if not enough time was granted, the decision would be no.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Republicans are being pretty slimy here, doing exactly...................

What the Democrats were doing during the Bush administration. :mrgreen:

Guess you missed the part where Marine aircraft where used to bomb Libya.

Click to expand...

Guess so, Tomahawk missiles were used too. Also, there was a coalition - other countries involved - (not a unilateral move). And I think my question referred to troops on the ground. Still, I concede the point. I will do my best to respond at least civilly, I'm not into insults so much. See source:US, Allies Attack Libya | Africa | English

...I love the way you assume I voted for Bush and that he is "my" President lol. Also,you need to check your facts. If you believe Obama has not enacted a stimulus since he's been in office, you aren't worth debating.

Click to expand...

#1 You assumed I did that "you assume I voted for Bush". I merely stated the fact that Bush was YOUR President and MINE. I did not vote for him and your vote is your prerogative.
And I didn't say that Obama didn't get stimulus money to help the economy. #2 - Since you made a point to avoid what I stated in the post and focus on a mote objection, I'll repeat. The republican President was the leader of the biggest economic collapse since the great depression engineered by doing almost everything special interests wanted, what a way to represent the 1%. lol And give the other 99% the finger.

How about the mandate that EVERYONE has to buy healthcare or pay a penalty. If you don't see anything wrong with that, you have issues. In addition, healthcare is not a right, its a privilege. I don't believe poor people should be turned away at the ER when they are dying of a gunshot wound. However, I also don't believe that a poor person should be able to come into Planned Parenthood and get an abortion on my dime either. There's a difference in needed healthcare and improving quality of life. I'm fine with providing a person with emergency care or much needed health care on my dime. Perfectly fine with that. However, I don't think I should have to pay for that person to come in and get routine check ups, a flu shot, etc. Those improve quality of life. Sorry, if you can't afford it, but that's the way it is...

Click to expand...

If the bill was allowed to go through they way it should have, that mandate as you call it, would not have become a penalty. Planned Parenthood does not use Federal dollars for abortions or abortion advice. Private funds are used and as you saw PPH does get private donations. I can't debate you for how you believe but I would say there are circumstances a person would not want to find themselves or even others in without healthcare. Prevention is a powerful remedy for bringing down healthcare costs. Why are you against it? That is one of the main reasons why people end up in ERs because they don't find out about their health problems until it is almost to late which should concern you too as it increases the cost of health care.

Catholics don't believe in contraception, he shouldn't try to force them to provide it. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

As many Catholics use contraceptives including the pill as any other demographic, The freedom to worship the Creator of Reality is a right. I seek to be in union with realities creator and its son (in the Basic instructions before leaving Earth - 'God is spirit' = 'God is neither male nor female' 'God created man he created him, male and female he created them' So from those simply statements, is the union of male and female what actually constitutes the being called MAN.) I digressed, pardon.

MarineTpartier said:

Obama On Being President: "You Get Better As Time Goes On" | RealClearPolitics
This segment of his interview solidifies what I have always suspected of Obama. It also makes me cringe to think that the guy could be re-elected. This is from MSNBC.com. I also provided the video of the interview so no one would say I made it up.
In a TODAY exclusive, Matt Lauer asked Obama about his supporters' disappointment over his first-term performance — that they believe he hasn't been "the transformational political figure they hoped you would be."
"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said.
"That's just the nature of being president," he said. "It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.
"What I'm going to just keep on doing is plodding away, very persistent. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on."
Wow. What we have here is a POTUS saying he should have more autocratic power over our legislature than he currently has and that he doesn't like the way the founders placed the Constitution in the way of him obtaining that power. If you don't take that from his interview, I'd like to hear what you do take from it. The last segment is the scariest one. This is just my opinion that I'm sure some will dismiss as rhetoric, and that's fine. But, the last sentence says to me that he will stop at nothing to get that power. No matter how long it takes, he will marginalize an already weak legislature by continuing to slowly but surely take power from them. If you don't believe that, look at his actions the last few months. He has appointed people without the legislative branch approving (labor board appointments). He has drawn up bills that give him more power (agency merging). He has dismissed any attempt to hold him to a standard as rhetoric (Keystone deadline). Its not that he didn't approve the Keystone pipeline. I don't agree with it, but its his right to do so as POTUS. But, he also had to add the quote that the deadline was "arbitrary". The guy has to go. If for anything, for his complete disregard for the things this country was founded upon. Many Presidents have worked within the parameters of the Constitution before, he should learn to do so as well. His failure to do so shows he is not up to the job.

Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with the comments President Obama made during his interview with Matt Lauer. All he is stating is the cumbersome nature of our nation's institutions made changing the country harder than he prefers and from time to time that gets his way of getting things done. That is true of any President that serves.

Much like the most of your complaints the last statement is not as bad as you are making it out to be. What he is saying is that he will continue to work to get legislation that he finds acceptable passed and that the longer he is president the more experienced he becomes in making that happen. Again, how is that any different that past presidents?

Even your examples of his "autocratic" ways are weak. You complain about his recess appointments, even though it is explicitly granted in the Constitution and there exists precedence of making them in a similar fashion. Then there is the complaint about his desire for more power to rearrange the Executive Branch, as if there is something silly about allowing the Executive to organize the Cabinet to make it most efficient to the needs of the Executive. And yet, any proposal he drafts would face an up or down vote in Congress. Finally, your complaint about Keystone is worthless.

To illustrate my point that prior presidents are no different I will use Ronald Reagan. Right now I am reading The Reagan Diaries, an abridged collection of the diaries that he kept while he was President. One of the things that he does constantly is complain about the Congress. I am at the point where he is working to get passage of a school prayer amendment through the Senate. After its failure he goes as far to call the senator leading the charge against it a "pompous, no good, fathead" and that Congress always is getting in the way of things that he wants to do. Now, does that make President Reagan an autocrat like you are calling President Obama here?

amph said:

Guess so, Tomahawk missiles were used too. Also, there was a coalition - other countries involved - (not a unilateral move). And I think my question referred to troops on the ground. Still, I concede the point. I will do my best to respond at least civilly, I'm not into insults so much. See source:US, Allies Attack Libya | Africa | English

Click to expand...

Troops where on the ground as well. Just not a "recognized" mission. There are quite a few instances where the press caught some operatives in the background advising Libyan rebels. Also, our military doctine states we do not allow any ordinance to be used unless there is a trained observer on the ground.

amph said:

#1 You assumed I did that "you assume I voted for Bush". I merely stated the fact that Bush was YOUR President and MINE. I did not vote for him and your vote is your prerogative.
And I didn't say that Obama didn't get stimulus money to help the economy. #2 - Since you made a point to avoid what I stated in the post and focus on a mote objection, I'll repeat. The republican President was the leader of the biggest economic collapse since the great depression engineered by doing almost everything special interests wanted, what a way to represent the 1%. lol And give the other 99% the finger.

Click to expand...

I don't assume it. Its what you said. If you would have said OUT President, that's what you would have meant. Instead, you chose the words YOUR President. Don't try to back out of it now. You never said anything of the Rep POTUS being the leader of the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression. These were your words, "Great since the stimulus was the parting effort of your former President to stave off the economic collapse caused by allowing the foxes to guard the hen house on Wall Street which the republican party made possible and still wants to return to." I merely showed that you were wrong in the assertion that the stimulus we are speaking of was the work of W Bush.

amph said:

If the bill was allowed to go through they way it should have, that mandate as you call it, would not have become a penalty. Planned Parenthood does not use Federal dollars for abortions or abortion advice. Private funds are used and as you saw PPH does get private donations. I can't debate you for how you believe but I would say there are circumstances a person would not want to find themselves or even others in without healthcare. Prevention is a powerful remedy for bringing down healthcare costs. Why are you against it? That is one of the main reasons why people end up in ERs because they don't find out about their health problems until it is almost to late which should concern you too as it increases the cost of health care.

Click to expand...

An mandate is a mandate bro. Any way you want to word it, its the gov't making you buy something. Thats deep water I don't want to wade into. Also, do abortions happen in the Planned Parenthood building built with my taxpayer dollars? Yes they do, so I am funding abortion and I don't agree with it. When the building and all equipment used for the abortions executed by Planned Parenthood are done with private money, I'll be happy that at least I'm not paying for the abortions. Then I can move on to getting Roe v Wade repealed. Preventative med is preferable, I agree. But, I'm not paying for preventative medicine for 1 million people just so we can catch a problem early in 10 of them. Thats not cost effective. Like it or not, but when we're talking about healthcare, the cost effectiveness is almost as important as the people.

amph said:

As many Catholics use contraceptives including the pill as any other demographic, The freedom to worship the Creator of Reality is a right. I seek to be in union with realities creator and its son (in the Basic instructions before leaving Earth - 'God is spirit' = 'God is neither male nor female' 'God created man he created him, male and female he created them' So from those simply statements, is the union of male and female what actually constitutes the being called MAN.) I digressed, pardon.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter that many Catholics use them. If its against their doctrine, its against their doctine. Plain and simple.

He did fine and I am hoping beyond hopes that he is re-elected. Dems., GET OUT THE VOTE!!!

johnny_rebson said:

He doesn't deserve four more years, but he's going to win reelection if the Republican nominee is Romney.

Click to expand...

Honestly with the pathetic state of the GOP he'll probably win reelection no matter who the nominee is. I'm going for Romney but honestly I'm not sure I'll vote for him anyway, he's just the least of all GOP evils. On the balance I'm more conservative and but I'm not a Republican by any stretch. Gingrich and Santorum are two of the worst candidates to run in recent history and either one of them getting the GOP nomination would in turn force me to vote for Obama. Paul seems like a good man, and I really respect his positions on a more humble foreign policy and his civil libertarianism but I'm not sure going to a gold standard is really in our best interests nor do I believe in reducing the government to the extent he does.

Bin Laden Dead, finally out of Iraq, looking to pull out of Afghan, played the Libya situation well, unemployment is dropping, manfacturing job are on the increase ( highest since 1990 in on month I think) and the American Auto industry is becoming a powerhouse again. Yes their are many things im sure he could do better and the budget needs to be sorted out but to say Obama has nothing to work with for the election is foolish.

Higgins86 said:

Bin Laden Dead, finally out of Iraq, looking to pull out of Afghan, played the Libya situation well, unemployment is dropping, manfacturing job are on the increase ( highest since 1990 in on month I think) and the American Auto industry is becoming a powerhouse again. Yes their are many things im sure he could do better and the budget needs to be sorted out but to say Obama has nothing to work with for the election is foolish.

Click to expand...

I'll give you Bin Laden, Iraq, and Afghan. He has done well, overall, in foreign policy (minus Israel). Libya? Unconstitutional. Unemployment? I am still doubtful the numbers are truthful. I hate to be a conspiracy theory guy. But, our work force has started shrinking according to labor numbers. How can that happen? It's NEVER happened in the history of our nation. I have no proof of someone fudging numbers so I won't say that is happening. But SOMETHING is happening. Manufacturing, I'll give him that. American Auto industry? Eh. When they pay us back, I'll listen to them. Here's the thing. Look what we have to show for it. We have 14 trillion in debt. Yes, I know some of it was there when he took over. Doesn't make it right. I could go out and burn through credit cards and make my house look awesome with a new 60" tv, living room and bedroom suites, brand new dining room table. However, if I am $20,000 in debt from it, what have I accomplished? I have effectively made myself a slave to those possessions because I can't do anything else. I can't go on vacation, I can't eat out, nothing. That's the road we're going down. We've been going down it for the past 12 years. A responsible POTUS would reduce the debt. He didn't.

MarineTpartier said:

Doesn't matter that many Catholics use them. If its against their doctrine, its against their doctine. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

So, who in this example is qualified to determine what an individual Catholic should believe? Surely not those Catholics themselves, right? American Catholics who actually refuse to use birth control are few and far between. A lot of American Catholic churches don't even preach against contraception, anymore.

Besides, providing contraceptives isn't the same thing as using them. The rule is not to use them, it isn't not to handle them or acknowledge their existence. And isn't a lot of Christian dogma centered around Earth being a temptation full of evil things? Giving these folks contraceptives and then telling them not to use them sounds like a pretty standard test of faith to me.

The second part of this post was tongue in cheek, the first was not. Who are you to tell people what they should believe and use their faith against them?

Higgins86 said:

unemployment is dropping,

Click to expand...

Unemployment is still alot higher than it was when Bush left office.

Sparky said:

Unemployment is still alot higher than it was when Bush left office.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's very slightly higher.