Who Will Concede?

Heisenberg wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Raees wrote: I can tell you right now unemployment is not going to still be 8% in four more years. The country couldn't sustain it.

So, answer the question directly, yes or no. If Obama is re-elected, and unemployment is 8% 3 yrs into his next term, will you acknowledge his policies have failed.

What about if we keep adding 1 trillion to the debt every year? Will you acknowledge his policies failed?

I will be upfront and say, if unemployment is back down around 5 to 5-1/2%, and we have a balanced budget, or even a slightly negative budget...That his policies succeeded.

Apparently, Raees can't answer that question because it may come back to haunt him. I stuck my neck out and I will stand by it.

IF President Obama is allowed to implement his policies, and IF there are no unforeseen crises that affect the economy, then yes, his policies can be blamed if there is no improvement. BUT, if the Republicans continue to block his policies, as they have for the last 3 years, then NO, he can not be blamed.

Something the Dog Said wrote: IF President Obama is allowed to implement his policies, and IF there are no unforeseen crises that affect the economy, then yes, his policies can be blamed if there is no improvement. BUT, if the Republicans continue to block his policies, as they have for the last 3 years, then NO, he can not be blamed.

So if Obama hasn't had any of his policies enacted....where is all the $$ going?

To programs already in place during the Bush years, and for the few victories that he's had. (Like eliminating the vultures in the middle at the banks for student loans...and then using the money saved to create even more Pell grants and student loans to send kids to college...)

It certainly hasn't gone to any jobs...(created by that "laser-like focus" in the House and the Senate)... Maybe it's in a bunch of those extra jet-engines for planes that the DoD said it didn't want or need; or the other weapons-systems that they said they didn't want or need. Or to fund the troops that are still over in Afghanistan fighting a war we didn't need...or want... Or for all those no-bid contracts with KBR and Blackwater that were already in place.... You can read a budget pie-chart as well as I can...

Democracy4Sale wrote: To programs already in place during the Bush years, and for the few victories that he's had. (Like eliminating the vultures in the middle at the banks for student loans...and then using the money saved to create even more Pell grants and student loans to send kids to college...)

It certainly hasn't gone to any jobs...(created by that "laser-like focus" in the House and the Senate)... Maybe it's in a bunch of those extra jet-engines for planes that the DoD said it didn't want or need; or the other weapons-systems that they said they didn't want or need. Or to fund the troops that are still over in Afghanistan fighting a war we didn't need...or want... Or for all those no-bid contracts with KBR and Blackwater that were already in place.... You can read a budget pie-chart as well as I can...

What about his 2 yrs of an unchecked supermajority in the house and senate? Are you saying they blocked Obama??

Yes...I am... The GOP blocked virtually every piece of legislation in the Senate with a filibuster. After Kennedy died, there was not a veto-proof majority. The constant lie that he had "an unchecked supermajority" in both houses is as much of a lie as the one about "getting rid of the work requirements on welfare." You guys wouldn't know TRUTH if it bit you in the backside.

The Big Lies of Mitt Romney V: Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For Two Years

This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":

"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"

I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.

And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html

But you keep spinning... Goebbels would be proud...

Dog is the only one who has come close to answering the question. Obama had the first two years to focus on the biggest problem but chose to focus on health care instead. Clinton worked across the isle and Obama chose not to. A good leader is not one who sets records for fundraisers and golf games... and you can't keep blaming the other side for blocking your ideas if you're not willing to sit down with them. If Obama wanted to work with the Republicans, his base would come unglued.

I'm sorry, who refused to debate health care and work on a bill that had input from both sides? The truth is the Republicans didn't because they didn't think it would pass without them. When it did, they started complaining about how they weren't involved in the process.

The truth is the "supermajority lasted 7 weeks...NOT TWO YEARS." File that one in the trash-bin with all the other lies.

Heisenberg wrote: A good leader is not one who sets records for fundraisers and golf games...

I suspect you are talking about the president. Are you purposely trying to make this stuff up, knowing it's false or do you really believe it?

Dwight Eisenhower played nearly 800 rounds during his two terms. That's around 100 rounds a year, and an average of about two rounds a week. Do I need to remind you which party he represented?

And what does it matter how many rounds of golf a president plays anyway? The Republicans have made this an issue about Obama, ignoring Bush's record before someone slapped him in the face and told him it looked bad (thank you Michael Moore for that), and the record of other presidents.

I'm not voting for a president based on how many rounds of golf they play or don't play.

Poor baby has to try to hang on to something.. "Fundraisers" (irrelevant) and "golf" (irrelevant) seem to be all that he has left after you destroy all his other lies.