• 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!

White House in damage control mode as potential scandals pile up [W:378]

as I said ... we're watching the reruns ... please don't interrupt, except if it's

to tell me that he was impeached ... BTW, saw Romney the other day ... looked good, but a little defeated ...

Nah he's fine. The only thing defeated is the US economy as 60 million morons decided to take MSNBC's word on it and elect a incompetent.

Next time take the 3 minutes of research it would have taken to realize how useless and corrupt the Democrats are.

The millions of American people slipping from Middle Class into poverty would sure appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, follow the posts of this poster and you will see what I mean.

That anybody who has a comprehension problem or has to get in the last word is female?
 
Nah he's fine. The only thing defeated is the US economy as 60 million morons decided to take MSNBC's word on it and elect a incompetent.

Next time take the 3 minutes of research it would have taken to realize how useless and corrupt the Democrats are.

The millions of American people slipping from Middle Class into poverty would sure appreciate it.

It took me less than 3 minutes to find this..... Maybe you underestimate the American voter and it is the losers that are the morons.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis, a unit of the Department of Commerce, has an extensive data set available on the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States. The currently available data begins in 1929 and goes through the present. This allows calculation of the change each year. To examine the effect of the political party in the White House to the performance, one can simply look at the average annual GDP growth under Democratic and Republican Presidents. The difference is large.

The period spans the administration of 12 Presidents, beginning with President Herbert Hoover. Conveniently, the number of administrations and the total number of years is equal for the two political parties.
The average GDP growth during years with a Democratic President (5.1%) is nearly three times as great as those with a Republican President (1.8%). The average GDP growth during the entire administrations of these last 12 Presidents is also quite different. The four with the greatest average GDP growth are all Democrats: Roosevelt 6.4%, Truman 6.2%, Kennedy 5.7%, and Johnson 4.2%. The four Presidents whose administrations saw the weakest economic growth were all Republicans: Hoover -7.3%, Bush41 1.9%, Bush43 2.4%, and Eisenhower 2.7%. For simplicity, the economic growth of the entire term is associated with the elected President, for the unfinished terms of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
Economic Growth and Political Parties in the United States - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
 
It took me less than 3 minutes to find this..... Maybe you underestimate the American voter and it is the losers that are the morons.


The average GDP growth during years with a Democratic President (5.1%) is nearly three times as great as those with a Republican President (1.8%). The average GDP growth during the entire administrations of these last 12 Presidents is also quite different. The four with the greatest average GDP growth are all Democrats: Roosevelt 6.4%, Truman 6.2%, Kennedy 5.7%, and Johnson 4.2%. The four Presidents whose administrations saw the weakest economic growth were all Republicans: Hoover -7.3%, Bush41 1.9%, Bush43 2.4%, and Eisenhower 2.7%. For simplicity, the economic growth of the entire term is associated with the elected President, for the unfinished terms of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
Economic Growth and Political Parties in the United States - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Looks like Obama is going to re-write the record books and rival Carter but that reality escapes you just like you fail to understand how our economy even works. How much did WWII benefit Roosevelt, the Korean War benefit Truman, and the Vietnam War benefit JFK and Johnson. So guess you are trying to tell us that we need another World War, Korean War, or Vietnam war under Democrat Presidents to show a good GDP?
 
It took me less than 3 minutes to find this..... Maybe you underestimate the American voter and it is the losers that are the morons.


The average GDP growth during years with a Democratic President (5.1%) is nearly three times as great as those with a Republican President (1.8%). The average GDP growth during the entire administrations of these last 12 Presidents is also quite different. The four with the greatest average GDP growth are all Democrats: Roosevelt 6.4%, Truman 6.2%, Kennedy 5.7%, and Johnson 4.2%. The four Presidents whose administrations saw the weakest economic growth were all Republicans: Hoover -7.3%, Bush41 1.9%, Bush43 2.4%, and Eisenhower 2.7%. For simplicity, the economic growth of the entire term is associated with the elected President, for the unfinished terms of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
Economic Growth and Political Parties in the United States - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

What your post demonstrates is that Democrats were far more intelligent in the past than they are today. But the left wing education policies and the media changed all of that. Now they are clearly not very bright, and that is a tragedy for the country.
 
What your post demonstrates is that Democrats were far more intelligent in the past than they are today. But the left wing education policies and the media changed all of that. Now they are clearly not very bright, and that is a tragedy for the country.

Oh I see... but what is your excuse for the incredibly poor performance of the Republican Presidents? Why do Republicans have so many recessions? I'll take my chances with a Democrat every time. I think many more have got the hint also. Republicans are bad for the economy and that has never changed.
 
Oh I see... but what is your excuse for the incredibly poor performance of the Republican Presidents? Why do Republicans have so many recessions? I'll take my chances with a Democrat every time. I think many more have got the hint also. Republicans are bad for the economy and that has never changed.

I don't see where Barrack Obama has done the country any good at all. Do you?
 
Oh I see... but what is your excuse for the incredibly poor performance of the Republican Presidents? Why do Republicans have so many recessions? I'll take my chances with a Democrat every time. I think many more have got the hint also. Republicans are bad for the economy and that has never changed.

No World War, No Korean War, No Vietnam War.
 
No World War, No Korean War, No Vietnam War.

Richard Nixon presided over the largest portion of the Vietnam war, where was his "war stimulus"? Where was GW Bush's big boost from his Iraq folly? He left the economy on tatters. Face it.. Republicans talk a good game when they are not governing but when it comes to getting an economy off its feet they are the pits. Reagan would be an exception except that his "miraculous recovery" pooped out when his record spending increases did.
 
Richard Nixon presided over the largest portion of the Vietnam war, where was his "war stimulus"?
Nixon ended the Vietnam war, which of course was begun by Democrats. There would have been no Vietnam War were Nixon President.His main argument against ending this war, begun by Democrats, was that Americans would lose credibility if they did not see it through. History has proven him absolutely correct.
 
FYI: It wasn't an "Embassy". At least get the facts straight before you wax poetically those RW talking points. ;)

It wasn't a Libyan gas station either....

Was the ambassador present?

Was it considered American soil?

Did the American Flag fly on the grounds?

Sorry, your nit picking matters not.
 
It took me less than 3 minutes to find this..... Maybe you underestimate the American voter and it is the losers that are the morons.



The average GDP growth during years with a Democratic President (5.1%) is nearly three times as great as those with a Republican President (1.8%). The average GDP growth during the entire administrations of these last 12 Presidents is also quite different. The four with the greatest average GDP growth are all Democrats: Roosevelt 6.4%, Truman 6.2%, Kennedy 5.7%, and Johnson 4.2%. The four Presidents whose administrations saw the weakest economic growth were all Republicans: Hoover -7.3%, Bush41 1.9%, Bush43 2.4%, and Eisenhower 2.7%. For simplicity, the economic growth of the entire term is associated with the elected President, for the unfinished terms of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
Economic Growth and Political Parties in the United States - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

You should take another three minutes before you post something completely irrelevent....again.
 
Nixon ended the Vietnam war, which of course was begun by Democrats. There would have been no Vietnam War were Nixon President.His main argument against ending this war, begun by Democrats, was that Americans would lose credibility if they did not see it through. History has proven him absolutely correct.

The Congress ended the Vietnam war by withdrawing funds. Nixon had little to do with it. America lost all credibility by staying involved in a conflict even when it was obvious we could not win. Thanks tricky Dick.
 
You should take another three minutes before you post something completely irrelevent....again.

Of course economic growth is "irrelevant" to you. Your side is much more fond of recession. That's why Republicans have so many of them.
 
Of course economic growth is "irrelevant" to you. Your side is much more fond of recession. That's why Republicans have so many of them.

Yeah right, democrats have been behind every economic disaster our country as faced.

Of course only progressives look at who the president is at the time without realizing that congress plays a major role in our economy.

It really baffles my ass how progressives refer to, or speak of presidents as dictator(s).

Go watch some C-Span.

Of course when we have a progressive in office such as Obamaclown that idiot tells congress to jump and progressive congressmen/woman say how high. Generally republicans don't do that.
 
Of course economic growth is "irrelevant" to you. Your side is much
more fond of recession. That's why Republicans have so many of them.

If economic growth is so important to you Libs why did you elect Obama ?
 
If economic growth is so important to you Libs why did you elect Obama ?

0817-biz-EUROweb.jpg
 
It took me less than 3 minutes to find this..... Maybe you underestimate the American voter and it is the losers that are the morons.


The average GDP growth during years with a Democratic President (5.1%) is nearly three times as great as those with a Republican President (1.8%). The average GDP growth during the entire administrations of these last 12 Presidents is also quite different. The four with the greatest average GDP growth are all Democrats: Roosevelt 6.4%, Truman 6.2%, Kennedy 5.7%, and Johnson 4.2%. The four Presidents whose administrations saw the weakest economic growth were all Republicans: Hoover -7.3%, Bush41 1.9%, Bush43 2.4%, and Eisenhower 2.7%. For simplicity, the economic growth of the entire term is associated with the elected President, for the unfinished terms of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
Economic Growth and Political Parties in the United States - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Presidents? who needs a congress if the president is David Blaine?

It's not like our congresses job is to write law - some of which is clearly beyond their realm of understanding and pay grade....
 
What do you call it when the Administration authorized talking points that were an attempt to mislead?

Is this the angle you want to come at this with? Really?

I suppose you have some sort of evidence to support this oft repeated (and totally ridiculous) lie?
 
Is this the angle you want to come at this with? Really?

I suppose you have some sort of evidence to support this oft repeated (and totally ridiculous) lie?

So Susan Rice wasn't given talking points that the CIA and State Dept. knew weren't true? Do you get any news were you live or do you just get a direct feed from the Obama Administration?
 
If you ever want to be taken seriously then you better act more serious.

Why would anyone want to be taken seriously on this forum? 90% of what is posted here is unsubstantiated angst and frankly ridiculous predictions and opinions with little to no basis in realty.

I post exactly to the quality of the discourse on this forum.

In any case, no one has exactly been able to articulate why anything the President's done in regards to these incidents actually qualifies as a scandal, and they won't because they aren't.
 
So Susan Rice wasn't given talking points that the CIA and State Dept. knew weren't true?

I'm just going to repeat this for you until it sinks in.

I suppose you have some sort of evidence to support this oft repeated (and totally ridiculous) lie?
 
Back
Top Bottom