Hey Whirly you want 5 good things Obama has done?- here you go:

Well you forgot about Ron Paul Wellendowed! He is the best candidate for getting this country back on track. The American Presidency is nothing more than a media blitz to find out who is the most popular person in America. American politics are a joke right now, the Chinese and everyone around the world knows this, their laughing at America watching the modern day Roman Empire decline. The media in this country has twisted everyone's minds because weak minded individuals allow them to, in our nation of celebrity culture the media makes someone popular when they want to. As we know our media is censored and their liars just like our government.

Im not for or against Obama, but when he began his campaign I almost believed he
was going to bring our troops home. That was a lie! People in the Democratic Party realized they had been duped along with most of the voters who voted for him. Instead of bringing more troops home he sent more to Afghanistan. What about the debacle in Libya? He sent American war planes in their to do his damage. Along with sending naval warships right off the Libyan coast. What about the drone attacks he approved of in Yemen and Pakistan which are killing innocent civilians? He is a murderer just like all of them which have come before him. People in his own party have even distanced themselves from Obama, they realize the guy is just from the land of Academia and doesn't know shit about true leadership.

Obama isn't even black, he's mixed! You know this, I know this, but yet everyone thinks he is black! I'd give Bill Clinton more credit for being the nations first black president than I would Obama. Obama is just a puppet and no, I didn't vote for him and I'm not going to in this upcoming election. Mark my word, he will be a one-term president. It wasn't the black vote in this country that put him in office. White America put him in office, you can't doubt that for a second.

Providers are more Republican and Tea Partiers than they actually realize! They love that they have escaped our brutal tax system with the money they recieve from hobbyists, yet the laws that be don't like this. They believe that everyone needs to be tax slaves. If the providers were true Democrats then they would give away half of what they made each month to stay in the tax system, continue to be tax slaves. Full-time Providers and even the part-time ladies can claim to be Democrats but their living their life with Tea Party ideals. I bet if I asked a provider to give away half of her hard earned money that she made for the month from hobbying, I bet she would tell me to go fuck off! WHAT, NOT WITH MY MONEY!!!! Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

CPT this may be of a surprise but I actually like some of Ron Paul's stances- he's brave enough to stand behind them, but the big factor about Ron Paul is he will never be accepted by mainstream America or Independents on a large scale to get elected- age is another minor factor- let's face it Paul is no spring chicken.
Ron Paul is in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution and I applaud him for being man enough to stand behind those issues- but there's no way he would win POTUS based on those 2 principles alone- those 2 issues have actually even alienated him from some conservatives.

I honestly don't see a viable candidate for Obama- a lot of conservatives like Perry- but he has some major obstacles to overcome- some conservatives stated(falsely) that Texas UE rate is lower than the nation's avg- however, Texas even though I live here- has a terrible education system and has one of the lowest earning avg wages in the Union- yes a lot of companies may want to re-locate to Texas because they know they can pay their workers low wages. Perry will alienate Independents as well- remember he was on record thinking about seceding from the Union- not a good idea if you are running for POTUS- Perry would get very little of the AA vote and/or the Hispanic vote which will be needed to beat Obama- just the facts folks.

For the GOP to have a shot- it's going to take a candidate that is in the middle that can take away a lot of the Independent votes from Obama and you going to need a candidate that can pull some of the young voters and the minority voters away from Obama and with the current crop you have running- none of them will be able to do it- just the facts!

Also, please you made me giggle by saying that he's mixed-lol- please don't try to claim him now LMFAO. Of course he's mixed- but are you going to tell me growing up or during school or before he became famous that he was viewed as "mixed"- are you telling me the average joe when they first laid eyes on him didn't view him and still don't view him as Black? Obama's black side shows up more than his white side- there is no person on earth who has or will ever mistake him for being white- so don't even go there- remember if you take genetics and you can google this if you like -the black gene dominates the white gene(I am not referring to superiority) but haven't you heard the old saying if you got a drop of Black blood in you- you are Black? If the choices on application for Barrack Obama were Black or White there's no doubt he would be classified as Black 100% of the time. Here's my source about what makes a person Black: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...d/onedrop.html
Also, technically are we not all mixed to some degree? My great grandfather was white and my great grandmother was Indian on my mother side but I don't considered myself mixed.

You go Hotlips!!!!!
For all you others- let me just break it down like this: The guy I voted for WON- so all of your remarks and anti-Obama hate doesn't bother me because after all your ranting when you wake up tomorrow he will still be in POTUS- would I would suggest is that you keep your BP down and just cast your vote on 11-4-2012 and than either late 11-4-2012 or 11-5-2012 you can start another Thread of how you are so mad that Obama got re-elected LOL!!!!
What's really funny is that in all of these anti-Obama thread no one is coming up with an alternative- for those of you who don't like him- what is your option?: Palin(I quit my job as governor but I will make a great President even though that job is 100 x's more stressful) Romney(I as Governor of Mass had a Health Care program that resembles Obamacare) Rick Perry(My UE rate is lower than the rest of the nation(lie) because my state created more jobs at McDonald's and I also wanted to Texas to secede from the U.S), Herman Cain( I don't want any muslims in my cabinet because I don't trust them, but this is different from a white man saying he doesn't want any blacks in his cabinet).
You see the problem you guys have is that you don't have a legitimate candidate to run against Obama which sucks for you and if you think Bachman has a chance of beating him than I got some prime real estate property to sell you.

Also, can someone post the great things George Bush done in his "fantastic" 8 years? Almost every problem you are facing today can in some form be traced back to the Bush years: high oil prices, mortgage decline, No Child Left Behind, Huge Deficit, 2 senseless wars, High UE rate and you want to blame Obama??? With what Bush left Obama I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy: 2 wars- a housing debacle - recession, etc?

Now let's see what did Bush walk into on Day 1: A budget surplus, no wars, low affordable gas prices, low UE rate and wow look where that went in 8 years.

Finally, where was the TEA party during the Bush years??? Doesn't the TEA party want smaller govt??? Government grow under Bush- actually it expanded larger than any other time in govt history. Doesn't the TEA party want less spending: Bush spent 5 trillion- he spent like a liberal- only thing he charged it to the deficit- Medicare Part D- 100 billion a year straight to the deficit. Doesn't the TEA party want the constitution protected-hmmm what about Bush policy on eavesdropping, wiretaps and the Patriotic act???? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Is that all you got, call us racists? Again, you disgust me. The people like me truly believe EVERYONE has potential without the benefit of race-based laws. You forgot to mention Ron Paul during your diatribe, but then why bring up someone that could win and bring us back to the rule of law and back to a government "of the people" if the media would actually back him instead of attack and that goes for Fox and talk radio.

The Tea Party rose despite an R administration and if you actually listened instead of bleeted talking points, you might actually see that the Tea Party dislikes the R's as much as the dislike the D's. Bush spent a lot in 8 years but Obama has matched him in less than 3. You libs seem to think that we are in this mess because Bush spent too much, including the budget surplus, but you fail to realize that spending from the same pot bush had his hands in isn't going to replinish the pot. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem and it amazes me that you only complain about the spending when an R is in the oval office.

You praise Clinton, but fail to mention that his mid term congressional change to R's was a result of HIS and HIS D congress spending at the beginning of his term. The congress holds the purse strings (Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution) and as much as I dislike NG, it was an R congress that held Clinton's purse.

BTW, the attacks without being able to debate shows that you have no real depth nor tolerance. You are completely void of intellectual honesty. Why don't you address at least just one item I pointed out where it proves your blogger and you were wrong. If Walter Reed Medical Center is doing so well due to BO's leadership, why is it CLOSING? The left was attacking Petreus at every turn during the Bush admin, but you are now praising him for the same role under BO after he was brought back BY BO? Why can't you acknowledge that BO has spent more money in less time than bush's 8 years? Why won't you admit that BO is in bed with big business also, i.e., GE? How about the no-bid contract that BO awarded to Haliburton?

I'll tell you why you haven't addressed it, because it would prove you were wrong. But you silence also shows you to be a hypocrit.

I pay taxes. And as a "consultant" I pay the full share of SS & medicare taxes, not just the employee half.

I'm a very slightly right leaning centrist.
not a fan of religion influencing policy, but DO believe in respecting differences.
Not a fan of socialist programs or "entitlements"

I am a fan of everyone paying a fair amount of taxes and saving for their own future.
I do believe privatization is far more efficient than govt in the majority of things.


But, I would not vote for Obama.
I wouldn't vote for McCain or Perry either.
I would almost vote for Hilary.. I'm pretty sure she was at least half running the show for Bill anyways. And as much as I hate to admit it, he was the best president that I'm old enough to remember anything about. I was alive when Regaen was in, but was too young to notice anything. Originally Posted by lilred_robin

I agree with everything LRR says here. Personally, when I read the US Constitution, I don't see a left or right, I see the language in that document and it doesn't appear all that hard to interpret. Especially, when you have the Declaration, Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, and other period documents to see the logic behind it's creation.

At the risk of all that is sacred, I am not a person of faith. Which puts me completely out of the typical rhetoric pushed by the lefts' conservative sterotypes. I do not believe in the divine. I personally believe religion was developed by humans to control humankind. However, I do not discount that there are devout followers in all faiths and it is not my place to try to convince them otherwise. I will respect their decison to do so as long as they offer me the same buffer.

To me there is no difference in someones faith in religion or the faith of an ideology; political or philisophical. To me, the later is a bit more scary.

Is that all you got, call us racists? Again, you disgust me. The people like me truly believe EVERYONE has potential without the benefit of race-based laws. You forgot to mention Ron Paul during your diatribe, but then why bring up someone that could win and bring us back to the rule of law and back to a government "of the people" if the media would actually back him instead of attack and that goes for Fox and talk radio.

The Tea Party rose despite an R administration and if you actually listened instead of bleeted talking points, you might actually see that the Tea Party dislikes the R's as much as the dislike the D's. Bush spent a lot in 8 years but Obama has matched him in less than 3. You libs seem to think that we are in this mess because Bush spent too much, including the budget surplus, but you fail to realize that spending from the same pot bush had his hands in isn't going to replinish the pot. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem and it amazes me that you only complain about the spending when an R is in the oval office.

You praise Clinton, but fail to mention that his mid term congressional change to R's was a result of HIS and HIS D congress spending at the beginning of his term. The congress holds the purse strings (Article 1 Section 8, US Constitution) and as much as I dislike NG, it was an R congress that held Clinton's purse.

BTW, the attacks without being able to debate shows that you have no real depth nor tolerance. You are completely void of intellectual honesty. Why don't you address at least just one item I pointed out where it proves your blogger and you were wrong. If Walter Reed Medical Center is doing so well due to BO's leadership, why is it CLOSING? The left was attacking Petreus at every turn during the Bush admin, but you are now praising him for the same role under BO after he was brought back BY BO? Why can't you acknowledge that BO has spent more money in less time than bush's 8 years? Why won't you admit that BO is in bed with big business also, i.e., GE? How about the no-bid contract that BO awarded to Haliburton?

I'll tell you why you haven't addressed it, because it would prove you were wrong. But you silence also shows you to be a hypocrit.



I agree with everything LRR says here. Personally, when I read the US Constitution, I don't see a left or right, I see the language in that document and it doesn't appear all that hard to interpret. Especially, when you have the Declaration, Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, and other period documents to see the logic behind it's creation.

At the risk of all that is sacred, I am not a person of faith. Which puts me completely out of the typical rhetoric pushed by the lefts' conservative sterotypes. I do not believe in the divine. I personally believe religion was developed by humans to control humankind. However, I do not discount that there are devout followers in all faiths and it is not my place to try to convince them otherwise. I will respect their decison to do so as long as they offer me the same buffer.

To me there is no difference in someones faith in religion or the faith of an ideology; political or philisophical. To me, the later is a bit more scary. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

For the record Obama has not matched Bush- Bush programs total 5 trillion- show me where Obama has amassed over 5 trillion on just his policies- please remember to take away the trillions that were put into affect by Bush before he left.


Also, show me where I called one of you a racist? If the Tea Party hates or dislikes the "r's" can you post me a link to one of their huge rallies that held during the Bush years?

The Tea party isn't even a grassroot movement- everyone knows they are an extension of the GOP and they are funded by the Billionaire Koch brothers and them have a huge media outlet: Faux News to spread their platform- hardly grassroots by any definition.

For the record Obama has not matched Bush- Bush programs total 5 trillion- show me where Obama has amassed over 5 trillion on just his policies- please remember to take away the trillions that were put into affect by Bush before he left.


Also, show me where I called one of you a racist? If the Tea Party hates or dislikes the "r's" can you post me a link to one of their huge rallies that held during the Bush years?

The Tea party isn't even a grassroot movement- everyone knows they are an extension of the GOP and they are funded by the Billionaire Koch brothers and them have a huge media outlet: Faux News to spread their platform- hardly grassroots by any definition. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Disembling already? I'll post what you asked for you when you address the items debating your blogger and yours factual inacuracies or are you just to much of a pussy to find out the truth. Does your ideology prevent you from finding fault with your idea of a leader? I'll even give you the rest of the night to actually show up to the debate.

Edit: Oh and proof isn't a fucking blog of someone's personal opinion. It's real news sources. BTW, Krugman et.al are paid hacks, so don't think they will convence me. You are trying to shape the readers ideology, so shape it, prove me wrong with fact.

Disembling already? I'll post what you asked for you when you address the items debating your blogger and yours factual inacuracies or are you just to much of a pussy to find out the truth. Does your ideology prevent you from finding fault with your idea of a leader? I'll even give you the rest of the night to actually show up to the debate.

Edit: Oh and proof isn't a fucking blog of someone's personal opinion. It's real news sources. BTW, Krugman is a hack, so don't think that will convence me. You are trying to shape the readers ideology, so shape it, prove me wrong with fact. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I complain no matter who was in the office- I look at the circumstances- I would never criticize Reagan because he was handed a crock of shit from a Democrat- he was handed an oil embargo- high inflation, hostage crisis and high UE- did Reagan fix Carter's shit in 3 years? Fuck No! Did Reagan raise Taxes- fuck yeah? Did Reagan spend a lot of money? Fuck yeah- in fact during Reagan's years he spent more money at the end of 8 years than all Presidents before him combined. Did Reagan make an impact- yes he did- he put the country on its feet and heading the right way- it took him 2 terms to do it-you don't fix shit like this over night, but somehow you expect Obama to wave a magic wand and make this shit disappear over night. at the end of the day I can at least say Obama has done some things to help the middle class- do you make less than 250k? Do all of your friends have great insurance coverage? What tax break did Bush give the middle class?

but somehow you expect Obama to wave a magic wand and make this shit disappear over night. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Let me take this a step further. The Republicans expect Obama to find a solution to the financial crisis but they are unwilling to raise additional tax money to do it.

Let me take this a step further. The Republicans expect Obama to find a solution to the financial crisis but they are unwilling to raise additional tax money to do it. Originally Posted by bigtex

We know from history that higher taxes do not equate to higher revenue. Jobs create revenue, when my expense increase I have to off set that. How do big businesses and rich people address higher taxes? They start by laying people off, down sizing and spending less. Now if the country would follow examples that Oprah, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and too many others to count (Rich people). They would start by getting their SPENDING in order. We need jobs to generate revenue not higher taxes.

Let me take this a step further. The Republicans expect Obama to find a solution to the financial crisis but they are unwilling to raise additional tax money to do it. Originally Posted by bigtex

I guess you don't understand that cutting spending or routing out fraud, waste and abuse isn't a viable way to increase revenues. Where do you think the money would go without fraud, waste abuse? Does magically evaporate? (rhetorical knowing our gvmt) Those revenue increases could be used to pay down the public debt or shore up valued programs.

I wonder if you think its ok for those asshole inside the beltway deserve the pensions/benefits they receive after they are no longer in federal politics even when they are only there one it two terms.

We know from history that higher taxes do not equate to higher revenue. Jobs create revenue, when my expense increase I have to off set that. How do big businesses and rich people address higher taxes? They start by laying people off, down sizing and spending less. Now if the country would follow examples that Oprah, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and too many others to count (Rich people). They would start by getting their SPENDING in order. We need jobs to generate revenue not higher taxes. Originally Posted by Fastcars1966

Are you sure about that? Have you ever heard of a President named Bill Clinton??? Did he not raise taxes on the rich and thereby increase revenue???? Let me ask you this simple question- if trickle down economics works- where were all the jobs during the Bush years???? If the rich were paying the lowest rates in 50 years- where the fuck are all the jobs????

How nice, copying stuff from somewhere and post it like you made it all up yourself. Originally Posted by waverunner234

What, somebody is a part-time Whirlybird, the king of copy and paste? If you shake up Whirly's posts and then dump them all out on a Scrabble board they spell "Plagiarism" Bullshit" "Plagiarism" Bullshit" "Plagiarism" Bullshit" "Plagiarism" Bullshit" "Plagiarism" Bullshit" "Plagiarism" Bullshit" "Plagiarism" Bullshit" ad infinitum.

Are you sure about that? Have you ever heard of a President named Bill Clinton??? Did he not raise taxes on the rich and thereby increase revenue???? Let me ask you this simple question- if trickle down economics works- where were all the jobs during the Bush years???? If the rich were paying the lowest rates in 50 years- where the fuck are all the jobs???? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Yes I am sure it is economics 101. No matter the tax rate revenue is always around 16.5% of the GDP President Clinton had the help of the .com era to help raise the revenues (the economy was doing quite well then). No matter the tax rate revenues are always historically around 16.5% of the GDP. If you don't believe me all you have to do is look at the GDP over time and total revenue. Then check that against the fluctuating tax rate over the same time. Now if you look at Y2K, tech stocks and the .com money dried up, the GDP dropped and amazingly so did revenue. I found this link so you don't have to do the math. http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/20...action-of-gdp/ Corporate taxes are just pass through taxes, the consumer ends up paying higher prices for goods. Coporations are tax collectors not tax payers.