Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 250

Thread: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

  1. #121
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    02-21-10 @ 10:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7

    rolleyes Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    No, my view comes from the U.S. Treasury Dept. website which is the checkbook of the United States. You ought to get the facts vs. buying what "everyone" else tells you. Check out where that surplus came from, use of SS funds. Was that the intent of SS funds?

    http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt00.pdf
    Boy, this is fun. Page 20 of the document you sent to me clearly shows that there was a surplus in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Perhaps you should read documents more carefully before you send out links to them. The front page of the Congressional Budgeting Office also clearly shows the same thing. (Congressional Budget Office - Home Page). I understand that you may not agree with the way the government keeps its statistics, but it is a fact that by official gov't statistics, there was a surplus for Clinton's last few years in office. Sorry, your view is fringe.






    "Quagmire"? Right out of the leftwing manual. Check out the Democratic quotes which led up to the war in Iraq. These are the people that had the same intelligence information as Bush. The Senate was under control of the Democrats and voted 76-23 in favor of the war, supported the war until the war turned south and even remained negative as Bush turned the tide and won the war. Obama has adopted the Bush doctrine in Iraq and the Bush Secretary of Defense.
    I did not support the war at any point, as the aims for it did not make sense.
    It has not been remotely worth the lives and treasure it's cost. The American public originally supported it because they were told there were WMD there and even that Saddam Hussein might be behind it. As the reality became clear, people changed their minds about the war. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, bungled the war for 6 years. Bush finally replaced him with someone competent when Dems won big in 2006, and Bush knew he was going to be out.



    Neither did Bush, but that isn't what the leftwing is going to tell you. Had Bush done what you and the left claimed, why wasn't he impeached? Democrats preferred to have the talking points to the facts.
    This is hysterical. Some Democrats tried very hard to impeach Bush, but they were in the minority for most of his time in office. Just because he wasn't impeached doesn't mean he didn't deserve it.



    You really don't know how our govt. works, do you? obama was in the Senate when the housing crisis bubble burst. He and the Democrats prevented Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac oversight rules to be even debated. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd did more damage to the financial institution along with Obama and his ties to ACORN than Bush ever could or did.

    Obama Caught in a Major ACORN Lie - Big Government

    My views are backed by facts, yours are backed by opinions.
    Wow, do you even know how you sound? You disagree with me, so I don't know anything about how the gov't works and all of my views are based on opinions and not facts. What a joke!

    Yes, I'm sure that Obama had more impact on the economy while serving as a junior senator than Bush did while president of the United States.http://www.debatepolitics.com/images...n_rolleyes.gif
    That makes so much sense. Now that Obama's out of the Senate, which junior senator is running the economy now?

    And you say that I don't know anything about how the gov't works...

  2. #122
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

    DenverGreg;1058576932]Boy, this is fun. Page 20 of the document you sent to me clearly shows that there was a surplus in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Perhaps you should read documents more carefully before you send out links to them. The front page of the Congressional Budgeting Office also clearly shows the same thing. (Congressional Budget Office - Home Page). I understand that you may not agree with the way the government keeps its statistics, but it is a fact that by official gov't statistics, there was a surplus for Clinton's last few years in office. Sorry, your view is fringe.
    I suggest you learn to read the report. Do you see a line item called Social Security? Should SS be on budget and not be put aside for future retirement? You really are a typical liberal and don't understand what you are even looking at



    I did not support the war at any point, as the aims for it did not make sense.
    It has not been remotely worth the lives and treasure it's cost. The American public originally supported it because they were told there were WMD there and even that Saddam Hussein might be behind it. As the reality became clear, people changed their minds about the war. Bush's Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, bungled the war for 6 years. Bush finally replaced him with someone competent when Dems won big in 2006, and Bush knew he was going to be out.
    Whether or not you supported the war is irrelevant, Congress did and they had the same information as the President



    This is hysterical. Some Democrats tried very hard to impeach Bush, but they were in the minority for most of his time in office. Just because he wasn't impeached doesn't mean he didn't deserve it.
    Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and as I recall Bush was still in office. Again what you think doesn't matter much as you have been fed a lot of false information that you buy as fact.



    Wow, do you even know how you sound? You disagree with me, so I don't know anything about how the gov't works and all of my views are based on opinions and not facts. What a joke!

    Yes, I'm sure that Obama had more impact on the economy while serving as a junior senator than Bush did while president of the United States.http://www.debatepolitics.com/images...n_rolleyes.gif
    That makes so much sense. Now that Obama's out of the Senate, which junior senator is running the economy now?

    And you say that I don't know anything about how the gov't works...[/
    Take a civics class, we don't elect a King, Bush had a Democrat Congress from 2007-2008. Our govt. runs as three equal branches of govt. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Congress is every bit as responsible for the economy as the President except in the liberal world.

  3. #123
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Reno J View Post
    Why? Those are FACTS! You seem to see only what you want to see. I have some reservations about your ability to understand anything other than the GOP "talking points"...
    I don't respond to lies my left wing friend.......You know if you keep saying something its not going to make it right.........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  4. #124
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,121

    Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

    wrong; the President is supposed to take the lead in foreign policy; Congress is supposed to have the lead in domestic policy

  5. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    If Obama's policies fail, will the left finally admit that this crap doesn't work and consider options different from they've pushed for the last 40 years?
    The problem with that logical idea is that they will NEVER admit he failed. They will twist and turn the stats to where, some bent ass way, it makes Obama look good. I've learned that two things comprise a left winger: blame bush and then argue your opponent so badly he gives up and quits then call yourself a winner.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 02-21-10 at 08:31 PM.

  6. #126
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,558

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    If Clinton had a budget surplus and I believe it was all fuzzy math it was because of the Republican congress and New Gingrich and his contract with america......They made slick willie balance the budget which he did not want to do....
    It's not really fuzzy math. The Congress of the US passed a budget in the last years of the Clinton Administration that, if one doesn't count the money stolen from Social Security, actually had a small surplus. Of course, the Democrats want to attribute that to Clinton, while the Republicans would rather claim it didn't happen, or claim "fuzzy math", or give credit where credit is due, to the Congress. Both parties want to ignore the money stolen from Social Security.

    Not too many years later, the Congress of the US under a "conservative" i.e. Republican president, passed a budget that was some 300 billion out of whack even after the money stolen from Social Security was factored in. Of course, the Democrats will point to that as proof that Clinton balanced the budget, while Bush was a big spender. Republicans, looking at the same figures, suddenly remembered that it was the congress that spend the money. Of course now, the budget is so far out of balance that the country is likely going to be bankrupt very soon. Democrats want to attribute that unfortunate truth to Bush, while Republicans point to Obama. Of course, both presidents approved huge deficits, but it was, once again, the Congress of the US that spent money that the country doesn't have.

    If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

    Oh yes, and neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility by any means.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  7. #127
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,225

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    With all the crap being thrown at him in the hope that some sticks, it's amazing that he's only just over half in the disapproval ratings. It's lucky he doesn't need to be elected right now. He has plenty time to turn things around.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  8. #128
    User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    02-21-10 @ 10:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7

    Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I suggest you learn to read the report. Do you see a line item called Social Security? Should SS be on budget and not be put aside for future retirement? You really are a typical liberal and don't understand what you are even looking at

    Whether or not you supported the war is irrelevant, Congress did and they had the same information as the President

    Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and as I recall Bush was still in office. Again what you think doesn't matter much as you have been fed a lot of false information that you buy as fact.

    Take a civics class, we don't elect a King, Bush had a Democrat Congress from 2007-2008. Our govt. runs as three equal branches of govt. Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Congress is every bit as responsible for the economy as the President except in the liberal world.
    This is futile. I came to this site for an intelligent debate on politics, but you do not appear capable of engaging in one.

    I do know how to read reports. I do know something about politics and civics and I would have more respect for you if you just argued politics and left the insults out of it.

    Regarding your report, I find it very interesting that you don't think I can read it. As I mentioned previously, there is a chart on p.20 of the document that you sent out to support your point, which shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. So which one of us is incapable of reading a report?

    I also sent you a link to the Congressional Budgeting Office, which shows exactly the same thing -- that there were budget surpluses in 1998-2000.
    Your line item regarding social security is entirely irrelevant. I understand that you don't think that the government should include these earnings, but it does, and therefore there are budget surpluses for the three years. Deal with it!

    Regarding the Iraq War, yes some Democrats supported it. But it was something conceived by Bush-Cheney and sold to the American people and Congress on the basis of exaggerations and misrepresentations. Much of Congress did not support giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq without a declaration of war, and many of those who did called on Bush to first exhaust all diplomatic means, which he did not.

  9. #129
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    It's not really fuzzy math. The Congress of the US passed a budget in the last years of the Clinton Administration that, if one doesn't count the money stolen from Social Security, actually had a small surplus. Of course, the Democrats want to attribute that to Clinton, while the Republicans would rather claim it didn't happen, or claim "fuzzy math", or give credit where credit is due, to the Congress. Both parties want to ignore the money stolen from Social Security.

    Not too many years later, the Congress of the US under a "conservative" i.e. Republican president, passed a budget that was some 300 billion out of whack even after the money stolen from Social Security was factored in. Of course, the Democrats will point to that as proof that Clinton balanced the budget, while Bush was a big spender. Republicans, looking at the same figures, suddenly remembered that it was the congress that spend the money. Of course now, the budget is so far out of balance that the country is likely going to be bankrupt very soon. Democrats want to attribute that unfortunate truth to Bush, while Republicans point to Obama. Of course, both presidents approved huge deficits, but it was, once again, the Congress of the US that spent money that the country doesn't have.

    If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

    Oh yes, and neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility by any means.
    Do you know who controlled the congress in 1994.....Do you know what the Contract with America qas...........Nuff said.............
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  10. #130
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Only 44% say they would vote Obama in 2012

    DenverGreg;1058577204]This is futile. I came to this site for an intelligent debate on politics, but you do not appear capable of engaging in one.

    I do know how to read reports. I do know something about politics and civics and I would have more respect for you if you just argued politics and left the insults out of it.

    Regarding your report, I find it very interesting that you don't think I can read it. As I mentioned previously, there is a chart on p.20 of the document that you sent out to support your point, which shows the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. So which one of us is incapable of reading a report?

    I also sent you a link to the Congressional Budgeting Office, which shows exactly the same thing -- that there were budget surpluses in 1998-2000.
    Your line item regarding social security is entirely irrelevant. I understand that you don't think that the government should include these earnings, but it does, and therefore there are budget surpluses for the three years. Deal with it!
    Obviously you haven't a clue. If you want honest debate start by being honest and looking at the line items in the Budget. There you will see Social Insurance and Retirement. That is Social Security and has no business being on budget. Take out the SS receipts and expenditures and you have no budget surplus. Now unless you believe stealing from the SS trust fund is ok then you are being intellectually dishonest.


    Regarding the Iraq War, yes some Democrats supported it. But it was something conceived by Bush-Cheney and sold to the American people and Congress on the basis of exaggerations and misrepresentations. Much of Congress did not support giving Bush the power to go to war in Iraq without a declaration of war, and many of those who did called on Bush to first exhaust all diplomatic means, which he did not
    .

    Some? 76 Senators voted for the war resolution? As for false information, again stop reading leftwing sites. Congress had access to exactly the same information as the President. To say differently is absolutely false. It serves no purpose to relive this at this point but Bush went to Congress, went to the UN and got resolutions from both. How many UN and Congressional resolutions did Saddam Hussein have to violate before you would have taken action? Fact is apparently Saddam Hussein thought he was dealing with Clinton.

Page 13 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •