True enough. Although I’m not sure how, when POTUS had both the House and Senate in Dumb control, he could have been “blocked” by the Tea Baggers.
With that I would normally agree, but 3 years ago it was a completely different story when it came to placing blame on POTUS for stupid shit like hurricanes and 9/11.
The Democrats have never had control of the Senate in Obama’s administration; they still don’t.
Racist much? 
Why is it that I only see Dumbs acting racist by claiming everyone else is?
What, exactly, have the Repugs done to make the Tea Baggers “racist”? Say something stupid like there’s a “black cloud of debt” over America? What a fucking dumbass.
You’re not allowed to insult other posters unless you’re posting in The BBQ Pit. This is a formal warning not to do it again. You’re also posting a lot of childish taunts of both parties, and making a bunch of basic factual errors- which indicates you’re not trying to do much other than annoy people.
LoL. Really?
110th Congress (2007-2009)
Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)
Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Total Seats: 100
Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.
111th Congress (2009-2011)
Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat
Total Seats: 100
Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I got confused what forum I was in. I have a short attention span and just wasn’t paying attention. :smack:
There are independents, aren’t there? Lieberman is anything but a solid D vote. He destroyed the Public Option personally.
Never mind that the Republicans were filibustering more than any other Senate in history. Ever. This means the margin for control is 60, instead of the 50 that the constitution requires. The Dems have never had 60 votes.
Does learning this change your opinion? Or will you ignore it, because you want to live in a world of comfortable misinformation?
Yeah, really. It takes 60 votes to avoid a fillibuster in the Senate, which the Republicans have done to virtually every piece of Democratic legislation. The Democrats have never seated 60 votes in the Senate, so they do not have control.
No, it will change my opinion if it’s true. And the way you explain it it does make sense. Although there is something to be said for the hilarity that ensues when you live in comfortable misinformation. Don’t you think?
This is a weird meme that the anti-Obama crowd seem to be pushing. But it’s always something vague like “He ran the country into the ground”, rather than actual concrete examples. But it’s hard to understand what exactly they think Obama did or what some other President would have done differently.
We've all seen [the charts](http://mobile.salon.com/tech/htww/2011/04/27/the_big_obama_spending_lie/index.html) that show the percentage of the current deficit that are due to Bush's policies. Obama inherited a $1 trillion dollar/year deficit before he ever sat down in the Oval Office.
The unemployment situation pretty much sucks. While Perry claims that the problem is uncertainty due to regulations, the real problem seems to be that consumers are just not generating demand. The very real threat of a US default and budgetary stalemates due to a recalcitrant Congress didn't help businesses become more confident about hiring. Could the President have articulated policies that would have increased hiring? Dunno. But the "worst President evar" crowd is pretty silent on what they would have done in his place (aside from the usual "lower taxes on the rich" approach that worked so well over the last 10 years).
Fair enough. Off the top of my head. How about when he promised to publish all non-emergency legislation on the web site for 5 days, then pushing bill after bill after bill through without publishing it for 5 days?
How about in the first two weeks of his term, after he promised to keep lobbyists out of his administration, he broke that promise 17 times?
How about when he promised to kill income taxes on seniors making less than $50k/year? He had ample opportunity to make that happen, including in the stimulus fiasco.
Do you want to discuss earmarks? After promising to pass legislation without them he allowed thousands of them in one. single. bill.
How about the Census? Shall we discuss how he took that out of the Department of Commerce and and put it under the direct control of the White House? You do realize that was completely unconstitutional, politically motivated expansion of executive power.
And yes, to Obama’s credit he closed Gitmo. But indefinite detention and torture are still running rampant.
Shall I go on? The list is rather long. :dubious:
In order:
Do you mean the infrastructure improvements that were included in the stimulus? I thought the only problem anyone had with that is that their weren’t enough of them?
Who gives a shit? The census is just some once-a-decade thing that has happened every decade without incident or problem. Regardless of who’s in control, the same thing happened this year. What EXACTLY is the problem with what he did?
What detention and torture? Please be VERY specific.
I’m not seeing a direct correlation between “Didn’t keep all his campaign promises” and “Running the country into the ground.” And Obama is doing reasonably well, if not stellar in terms of keeping promises.
Again, there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the over-the-top anti-Obama rhetoric. At worst, Obama is a moderate and only moderately effective politician. Even counting his health care proposals, none of his policies are particularly alarming or extreme. None of this merits the kind of animus I’ve seen directed at him.
That was because congress thought it was unworkable. This one is a genuine broken promise, but with Republican Obstructionism at historic levels it just couldn’t be sustained.
How many are in his administration versus other recent administrations?
First, the stimulus saved the economy and millions of jobs. This is a fact. Second, have you seen the Republicans? What makes you think they’d let this pass?
You are again, misinformed. Obama promised to review the necessity of earmarks. That said, earmarks are trivial in the budget. Obameter: | PolitiFact
It wasn’t unconstitutional. You should look up information about this, because you’re way off base here.
Gitmo wasn’t closed because of Republican obstructionism. If you want Obama to win more, vote for Dems in November 2012.
Your list doesn’t impress. You don’t appear to have a lot of real information here.
/swerve/ :eek:
How’s that? It was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. It’s over 9%. The economy is anything but saved. It’s tanking faster than ever. (Unless you consider that Prosperity they’re printing hand over fist to be “saving the economy”.
No, he did not. And I quote:
[QUOTE=POTUS]
“We are going to ban all earmarks – the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review,” he explained. “We will create an economic recovery oversight board made up of key administration officials and independent advisors to identify problems early and make sure we are doing all we can to solve it.”
[/QUOTE]
How does moving something from the Department of Commerce to the White House expand executive power? The Department of Commerce is a part of the executive branch.
Care to answer my question? I didn’t want to bother looking it up since you were wrong about all the other points. So please, substantiate your claim.
Again, you are spouting nonsense. The stimulus was projected to keep unemployment at 8% based on the economy numbers available as it were drafted. Now sometimes the economic numbers are revised as more accurate data comes in. As it happens, the economy was worse than the initial numbers said it was.
This means we needed more stimulus than we got. Read that paragraph a few times until it sinks in. The Stimulus kept us out of a full depression.
I assumed you were thinking about earmarks in general. If you’re talking about the Stimulus in particular, a few earmarks got in. It wasn’t stuffed with them:
Reality. Come visit us, you’ll like it here.
Sure, just like you answered mine? Duh.
Rekd, if you truly believe that Obama is the worst president in recent history, a notion, I can only say, you have not effectively demonstrated so far, you might be better served to explain who specifically you think would do better amongst the current crop of candidates, and why.
Not to worry, folks. Dear Leader is still ahead of Paul in this Rassmussen poll.
Dear Leader: 39%
Ron Paul: 38%
