• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confessions of a Regretful Obama Supporter

You'll get that from us when Obama invades a country over WMD he claims are there, but aren't, and 5,000 Americans and upwards of 100,000 or more foreigners are killed.

You mean like these "Republicans?"

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Hey, Con ... did ya notice what I noticed ... ?

Not a single person on that list deployed a single combat troop into Iraq.

But you know who did, don't you?
 
Howls a Conservative who just revealed he doesn't know the difference between a bailout bill and a stimulus bill. :roll:

Looks like a waste of time to me, when you say something constructive I will back, with you however doubt it will be soon.
 
Hey, Con ... did ya notice what I noticed ... ?

Not a single person on that list deployed a single combat troop into Iraq.

But you know who did, don't you?

As for most of them, their vote and support did
 
Wonder why it takes some people years to get a new jobs and it only took you a few weeks? Hmmm, guess you are so much smarter than the 15 million unemployed today?
I can certainly understand why you would believe that, but as I said, I just so happen to be in a field which is currently in high demand.

There you go again, unemployment rates...
Yeah, how dare I use unemployment rates to determine how much the unemployment rates dropped or increased for each president? :roll:


Sheik Yerbuti said:
According to you, it's because of "results." Funny though when you're shown how Obama is performing better than Reagan, it becomes about popularity and not results.

Can you spell, "hypocrisy?"


Sure can, L-I-B-E-R-A-L
Cute. Doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite for saying Obama's JAR at 41% is due to "results"; but his JAR at 49% compared to Reagan's at 41% is due to "popularity," but cute nonetheless.

Hopefully when you grow up you will be able to admit you were wrong in supporting liberalism. That would be a sign of maturity
If you're a shining example of Conservatism, I would rather be sent to Abu-Ghraib. You're an excellent reason to remain a Liberal. Kind of like how my parents tacitly taught me not to smoke cigarettes -- which they did, without knowing it, by smoking themselves. I learn from other peoples' mistakes.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Not by June 24, 2009, he didn't.

He didn't what? He campaigned on removing the troops,
Do you even know what he said? It appears not ...

"As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010" ~ Barack Obama, 7.14.2008

Last US combat troops leave Iraq

Operations officially end two weeks ahead of Barack Obama's deadline, leaving 56,000 service personnel in the country

he campaigned on closing GITMO, He campaigned on so many things but broke them all.
You're right about Gitmo but you look like an imbecile about saying he broke "all" of his campaign promises. I just showed one he didn't.

Nice attempt at diversion, what part of the 1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009 will you assign to Obama spending?
Asked and answered. Besides, the projected deficit before Obama spent a dime was already up to $1.2 trillion.

Deficit Projected to Soar to $1.2 Trillion
Posted: January 7, 2009

The federal budget deficit will hit an unprecedented $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, new Congressional Budget Office figures show.

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Again, are you man enough to admit you were wrong?

Apparently not
Guess you're not much of a man then. :(
 
As for most of them, their vote and support did
Nope. Try again. Here's a clue for you -- only one person, the Commander-in-Chief, possesses the constitutional authority to deploy troops into war. None of those people did.
 
Very good, things that actually exist, like 15 million unemployed Americans, more unemployed and less employed than when Obama took office even after spending over a trillion dollars on a stimulus and TARP program, and more debt added in three years than in Bush's 8. That is indeed reality. Further, reality is every economic prediction and projection made by Obama has been wrong just like his national security policies. Refute that reality!
Why do you conveniently ignore the fact that outsourcing has a lot to do with the unemployment numbers?

I sure looks like he doesn't want to deal with you question.
 
Actually how dare you drop out discouraged workers and ignore them when calculating the rate.
 
Nope. Try again. Here's a clue for you -- only one person, the Commander-in-Chief, possesses the constitutional authority to deploy troops into war. None of those people did.

With the approval of Congress and the authorization resolution of October 2002 from a Democrat Controlled Senate gave that authorization. I had three family members deployed to Iraq, what was your exerience there?
 
Actually how dare you drop out discouraged workers and ignore them when calculating the rate.
I presume you are speaking of this list of unemployment performance by president ... ?
Nixon ............ +74%
Eisenhower ... +69%
Ford .............. +42%
Reagan ......... +39%
Bush ............. +38%
GHW Bush ..... +19%
Obama .......... +15%
Kennedy ........ -14%
Carter ............ -21%
Clinton ........... -23%
Johnson ......... -28%

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

... I also presume you don't know that the U3 unemployment rate is the "official" unemployment rate.
 
I presume you are speaking of this list of unemployment performance by president ... ?
Nixon ............ +74%
Eisenhower ... +69%
Ford .............. +42%
Reagan ......... +39%
Bush ............. +38%
GHW Bush ..... +19%
Obama .......... +15%
Kennedy ........ -14%
Carter ............ -21%
Clinton ........... -23%
Johnson ......... -28%

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

... I also presume you don't know that the U3 unemployment rate is the "official" unemployment rate.

Still trying to justify 15 million unemployed Americans? Why don't you visit them at the unemployment agency and tell them how great Obama is doing?
 
With the approval of Congress and the authorization resolution of October 2002 from a Democrat Controlled Senate gave that authorization. I had three family members deployed to Iraq, what was your exerience there?
Still, only one person sent them. George Dubya Bush. Yes, he was given authority, but he didn't have to use it. And I'm pretty sure I've already answered your question ... memory loss again? None.
 
Still trying to justify 15 million unemployed Americans?
No, if I wanted to do that, I would remind you that Bush handed Obama 13 million unemployed. The list above is to show you that regardless of how bad the unemployment rate is under Obama, it was worse under every single Republican president dating back at least as far as Herbert Hoover. Did you kvetch like this during every Republican president you voted for? After their first two years respectively, the unemployment rate increased even more than it has under Obama, and you whine hourly about him.
 
No, if I wanted to do that, I would remind you that Bush handed Obama 13 million unemployed. The list above is to show you that regardless of how bad the unemployment rate is under Obama, it was worse under every single Republican president dating back at least as far as Herbert Hoover. Did you kvetch like this during every Republican president you voted for? After their first two years respectively, the unemployment rate increased even more than it has under Obama, and you whine hourly about him.

Right, and Obama raised it, great job! 15 million unemployed Americans appreciate the Obama effort
 
No response, eh, Con? Not surprised. Here, see if you can spot the disconnect ...

"No one can inherit a deficit because that deficit is yearly ending on Sept. 30 nor can you inherit a projected deficit as it isn't real." ~ Conservative, 2.15.2011

"2011 projected deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars. Add them up and I did it for you but obviously you ignored that" ~ Conservative, 3.31.2011
 
Right, and Obama raised it, great job! 15 million unemployed Americans appreciate the Obama effort

Congratulations, Barack, another month where unemployment is higher than it was two years ago when you took office and it only cost us 4 trillion added to the debt to get there. Cost vs. benefits are something that the obama brainwashed continue to ignore.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542

Discouraged workers

2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921

Unemployed + Discouraged

2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196 181236
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803 192315
2011 14856 14693 14463
 
Congratulations, Barack, another month where unemployment is higher than it was two years ago when you took office and it only cost us 4 trillion added to the debt to get there. Cost vs. benefits are something that the obama brainwashed continue to ignore.
You're still lying. Obama did not spend $4 trillion dollars on job stimulus. Do you even realize you undermine your own position when you lie like that?

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 2000 to 2010

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767 14843 15119 14485
2011 13863 13673 13542

Discouraged workers

2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318
2011 993 1020 921

Unemployed + Discouraged

2008 8095 7831 8194 8043 8797 8980 9356 9890 10036 10656 11225 12042
2009 12653 13445 13995 14556 15310 15514 15330 15751 15865 16420 16201 16196 181236
2010 15902 16075 15999 16457 16056 15830 15784 15970 15976 16062 16401 15803 192315
2011 14856 14693 14463
Hey, look at that, Gramps, I'm not the only one to find a job last month. 291,000 others did too!

BLS.gov
 
You're still lying. Obama did not spend $4 trillion dollars on job stimulus. Do you even realize you undermine your own position when you lie like that?


Hey, look at that, Gramps, I'm not the only one to find a job last month. 291,000 others did too!

BLS.gov

No one said Obama spent 4 trillion dollars on the stimulus, the stimulus was around 821 billion dollars. The 4 trillion dollars is the debt Obama has added in a little over two years and the results are more unemployed today than when he took office and what they were in March 2009, almost $4 gasoline, less employed. Wonder if Obama buddies are getting rich on the doubling of the gasoline prices like Bush buddies did when liberals made the claim?
 
No one said Obama spent 4 trillion dollars on the stimulus, the stimulus was around 821 billion dollars. The 4 trillion dollars is the debt Obama has added in a little over two years and the results are more unemployed today than when he took office and what they were in March 2009, almost $4 gasoline, less employed. Wonder if Obama buddies are getting rich on the doubling of the gasoline prices like Bush buddies did when liberals made the claim?
You are wrong, Obama didn't add that amount to the debt. The debt is because lost income tax revenue from the unemployment that start during Bush's administration. And the recurrent spending by both Bush and Obama. Wall Street emerged from the recession back in June of 2009 as you have said. But main-street is still in a recession, ask Americans and most will say we are still in a recession.

You have major Obama Derangement Syndrome and you turn almost every conversation here at DP to discussing Obama. Give it up man, you are boring as hell. Same data dumps, same talking points.

So far, there doesn't seem to be many GOP candidates that want to go against Obama. Given the first GOP debate is next month at the Reagan library there should be plenty that have officially thrown their hat in the ring. What's the matter???
 
pbrauer;1059384511]You are wrong, Obama didn't add that amount to the debt. The debt is because lost income tax revenue from the unemployment that start during Bush's administration. And the recurrent spending by both Bush and Obama. Wall Street emerged from the recession back in June of 2009 as you have said. But main-street is still in a recession, ask Americans and most will say we are still in a recession.

Again, the debt occurred on Obama's watch. You want to blame Bush for the debt that was also due to unemployment. Unemployment comes from economic policy as well as economic results. Obama was hired to improve the economy and eliminate the unemployment problem, Two years later he has accomplished little other than grow the debt.


You have major Obama Derangement Syndrome and you turn almost every conversation here at DP to discussing Obama. Give it up man, you are boring as hell. Same data dumps, same talking points.

Sorry, but data is results, you don't like the data but instead prefer the Obama rhetoric. The results are what they are and pointing out the results has nothing to do with ODS. Obama was hired to as he stated clean up the mess and hasn't done so. Two years later and after 4 trillion has been added to the debt the results show this President to be a disaster just like his resume showed in the beginning.

So far, there doesn't seem to be many GOP candidates that want to go against Obama. Given the first GOP debate is next month at the Reagan library there should be plenty that have officially thrown their hat in the ring. What's the matter???


So far? It doesn't matter who runs against Obama, if he has these numbers thus results he loses and rightly so.
 
I repeat what I said above, you are boring as hell. You are correct about one thing results matter. We will see those results the first Tuesday on November, 2012. :2wave:
 
I see the broken record hasn't been fixed yet.

I recognize that liberals don't like it when Obama results are posted and compared to the past. I understand why Obama supporters prefer the rhetoric and diversion to actual results and data.
 
I repeat what I said above, you are boring as hell. You are correct about one thing results matter. We will see those results the first Tuesday on November, 2012. :2wave:

I would love to see your explanation as to how anyone can support Obama with the results he has generated and that is the point of this thread. If results matter then show it long before the November 2012 elections. What exactly has Obama done that has generated positive economic results for the country?
 
No, the same crap day after day. He obviously has this stuff saved in documents on his computer.

Right, because I can anticipate rhetoric that doesn't match actual results from the Obama brainwashed. Whether or not the data is stored it can be verified by the sites which for some reason were good enough during the Clinton years to show job creation and economic results but are ignored now. Wonder why, LOL?
 
Back
Top Bottom