Sure, if you have no criticism of the bills, it's Obama taking "shameless credit". All spending bills are passed by the legislature, never stop anyone from blaming the Presidents for them.
That's not true. The President has the power to draft legislation for bills. It's one thing if the President drafts the bill, gives it to a congressman to submit, and Congress approves it, and then he wants to become the showpiece for it. It's another if the hard work of legislatures were the origin of the bill, and they put the further work to get it to pass, then the guy who signed it into law wants to take that credit from them as his work. Most times if the bills are attributed to others, they give the accompanying names credit.
I never said there are no criticisms of the bills, it just makes it seem like these bills were his ideas (which might be used as a rationale for keeping him in office), but they arent. He's a puppet head. The truth is, this president has few if any truly original ideas. He is just a mouthpiece for more liberal thinkers that influenced him, Saul Alinsky, Derrick Bell, etc. and the more liberal movers and shakers like Rahm Emanuel. The bills he has signed were more the work of Nancy Pelosi and common place Democratic pols, who with control of both houses and the executive branch ushered in a new era of wreckless spending not matched before.
As far as taking responsibility, again, the buck is supposed to stop there. This was a common refrain I heard from liberals bashing Bush for increased spending. Now suddenly the president doesn't have the power of veto? Oh, wait he still does, and could...
The Republican-controlled house should have tried to impeach him then, but political theater was the order of the day.
So says the video anyway... :roll:
They are attempting to do so with HR 107.
So the world comes down to Afghanistan?
I didn't say they come down to Afghanistan... those anti-US rallies aren't just in Afghanistan. However, if Bush's War was in Iraq, this president said we should focus on Afghanistan, and the situation is worse off now than it was under Bush. Point is still, US is hated worldwide, regardless of what country you're in, even with our allies.
Being President, nominating the nominee, get Congress to approve them.
Exactly my point... His great stoke of genius was a supreme court justice stepping down, and then fulfilling his duty of nominating a replacement... wow great job there Obama, what a wonderstroke of brilliance. (I think you missed the sarcasm. Adding your own adds nothing to this, unless you feeled necesarily compelled to respond to absolutely every point)
You should see the graph again.
I have... here it is;
File:UsJobs 200709 201112.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Except, in the video, for the months after the innauguration, they "conveniently" put a blue rectangular box which covers the bottom of the lines where we were losing huge amounts of jobs under Obama.
However, this is what it originally looked like;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d0/20120223213134!UsJobs_200709_201112.jpg
Notice the difference? Like I said, it's been changed to look more beneficial to the president.
It was also shown at an angle and with the pace in the video to make it seem job additions are skyrotting at such resounding rates... (even to the point that the screen closed in on the positive numbers so they took up the entire screen, so compartively they looked as equal to the losses).. when theyre really just stagnantly recovering slowly to 2007 levels. They also showed it slowly for the economic downturn under Bush to overemphacize that.
Also, for perspectives sake, it would be nice to have the graphic extended to see in comparison with similar economic recovery periods for a comparative...
Simple - when they made a profit. Having a government as a shareholder doesn't change the basic accounting.
No, but there's a serious ethical quandry which they don't seem to care about. $35B of taxpayer money is the majority stake owner of your organization, which the national debt is growing faster than ever before. You'd think they'd responsibly buy the stock back, slowly. However, they're shamelessly the socialist industry Obama wanted to create. However, their reports of record profits pale to those organizations like Ford, Toyota and Honda, which made their own recovery, and are still just as competitive.
(One might also point to the appropriate market reductions on Toyota and Honda for the sudden disproportionate government recalls against them after the government bought ownership of their competitor, as well as Ford's production delays from problems experienced by Japanese part manufacturers in the wake of the Tsunami as not competiting on the same level for that small period where they claim these temporary profits.)
And this criticism just show what a small person you are. Seriously, who cares what prop was put on stage?
One that knows in a time of economic downturn, when a president is wasting sooooo much money on his personal image, it goes further to the point that he has no idea what the true priorities of the country are, and believes in the socialist propaganda mentality, and throwing government money at a problem until enough is given that something happens.
You have to ask that? If you haven't got that from the title and the source, it doesn't say much for your intelligence.
You're really not good at picking up sarcasm, are you? Might actually speak to the level of your intelligence...
Since you're no where "in-between" how would you know whether it sway them or not? Politicians of all stripe spend millions of dollar on these ads for a reason.
I'm more in between than just about anybody you could point to. I have voted for Democrat, Republican, 3rd Party, Independent, and written in many candidates.
For president 92 I wasn't old enough to vote but was a fan of Clinton (D) and actively campaigned for him, in 96 Dole (R), in 2000 I voted Nader (G), in 2004 I wrote-in Nader (WI), and in 2008 I wrote in Romney (WI). For Governor I voted Harshbarger (D) in 98, in 2002 I voted Romney (R), in 2006 I voted Mihos (Ind). 2 Dems, 2 Reps, 2 write-ins, 1 3rd Party, and 1 Ind. That's as diverse a voting record as you will find, which truly represents my centrist views.
However, you would be right not to call me a "swing" voter, since I'm not gonna get wrapped up by some propaganda peice on any candidate and change my views.
Politicians of NO stripes have done something like this before. This is as extravegant a piece as has ever been concocted, by a President who knows he is in real trouble for re-election.
I forgot to add, my thoughts were on how much Goldsbie looks like a twit, and how Rahm Emanuel just gives off the appearance of evil...