Make the Case Against Obama with Evidence

[randel]

Is that the best you can do claim that I am backed into a corner by not answering a question that has nothing to do with the thread topic? Amazing how liberals all stick together and pile on losing issues. The topic here is the case against Barack Obama and that case is a strong one. You and all the other Obama supporters cannot admit when wrong so you divert to other issues. Carry on, you want me to address Reagan issues then start a Reagan thread but better yet the question is easily answered by just doing your own research. Suggest you give it a try. In the meantime defend the policies of the guy you supported and apparently continue to support. Is the country better off today than it was 2 1/2 years ago? pretty simple question and based upon debt, unemployment, employment, gasoline prices, consumer confidence the answer is NO

keep going...lol...you keep proving my point...the discussion was fine with you UNTIL you were backed into a corner, and couldnt get yourself out of it, and BOOM!!, it was time to get back on topic...you don't like to deal with things that make you uncomfortable, or things you have no answers for, or you know the answer, but can't spin it to fit your world views.

 

[Conservative]

keep going...lol...you keep proving my point...the discussion was fine with you UNTIL you were backed into a corner, and couldnt get yourself out of it, and BOOM!!, it was time to get back on topic...you don't like to deal with things that make you uncomfortable, or things you have no answers for, or you know the answer, but can't spin it to fit your world views.

For a liberal the discussion was fine because it was off topic and diverted from the Obama record. that is what liberals do and what I allowed to happen. What relevance does that question have to the thread topic and if you can provide one I will be happy to answer or better yet, start your own Reagan thread and I will be there. No longer am I going to be diverted from the tread topic by liberal tactics to divert from their empty suit.

 

[randel]

For a liberal the discussion was fine because it was off topic and diverted from the Obama record. that is what liberals do and what I allowed to happen. What relevance does that question have to the thread topic and if you can provide one I will be happy to answer or better yet, start your own Reagan thread and I will be there. No longer am I going to be diverted from the tread topic by liberal tactics to divert from their empty suit.

translation--i was fine with the direction the discussion was heading, as long as i could direct the conversation, and as long as i could ask the questions and demand answers....i'm not playing the game no more if i'm expected to answer questions....end translation.

 

[Conservative]

translation--i was fine with the direction the discussion was heading, as long as i could direct the conversation, and as long as i could ask the questions and demand answers....i'm not playing the game no more if i'm expected to answer questions....end translation.

Actually translation, liberals want no part of talking about the Obama record so they interject Reagan or Bush into the topic and unfortunately I bit, no longer. address the thread topic or start your own thread and I will be happy to join. What specific relevance does that question have to do with the thread topic?

 

[randel]

Actually translation, liberals want no part of talking about the Obama record so they interject Reagan or Bush into the topic and unfortunately I bit, no longer. address the thread topic or start your own thread and I will be happy to join. What specific relevance does that question have to do with the thread topic?

and if that were the case, you could have refused to take part in the discussion...you didnt, you took part, and particiapated as long as the questions were not to difficult for you to handle, and as long as you could direct the questions, and demand answers...since you chose to participate, those you were in discussions with are fully within their right to expect you to answer the questions put before you, to try and pull the 'lets get back on topic' bs is a cop out on your part, because you don't want to play now, now that the questions are being asked of you. more fun to ask questions than to have to answer them, eh con?

 

[Conservative]

and if that were the case, you could have refused to take part in the discussion...you didnt, you took part, and particiapated as long as the questions were not to difficult for you to handle, and as long as you could direct the questions, and demand answers...since you chose to participate, those you were in discussions with are fully within their right to expect you to answer the questions put before you, to try and pull the 'lets get back on topic' bs is a cop out on your part, because you don't want to play now, now that the questions are being asked of you. more fun to ask questions than to have to answer them, eh con?

I keep wondering it what it is about liberalism that creates such a loyal following, one that ignores the record and continues to buy the rhetoric. Throughout this thread there hasn't been one attempt to defend the obama record but there always are attempts to divert to Reagan or Bush. None of that has anything to do with today for the economic conditions today are much different than the 80's. I lived and worked during the 80's and understand the economic conditions then quite well. Most here don't but that doesn't stop them from trying to divert in a negative way. Why is that? What is it about Obama that would cause people to ignore the fact that there are over 2 million more people unemployed today than when he took office, 4 trillion added to the debt, fewer people employed thus a declining labor force, very poor economic growth, higher gasoline prices, and yet still record low interest rates?

I know there are certain things that motivate Obama supporters to continue to buy the rhetoric but there is going to come a time when results are going to matter and that time should be now. This IS the Obama economy and it is a disaster.

 

[randel]

I keep wondering it what it is about liberalism that creates such a loyal following, one that ignores the record and continues to buy the rhetoric. Throughout this thread there hasn't been one attempt to defend the obama record but there always are attempts to divert to Reagan or Bush. None of that has anything to do with today for the economic conditions today are much different than the 80's. I lived and worked during the 80's and understand the economic conditions then quite well. Most here don't but that doesn't stop them from trying to divert in a negative way. Why is that? What is it about Obama that would cause people to ignore the fact that there are over 2 million more people unemployed today than when he took office, 4 trillion added to the debt, fewer people employed thus a declining labor force, very poor economic growth, higher gasoline prices, and yet still record low interest rates?

I know there are certain things that motivate Obama supporters to continue to buy the rhetoric but there is going to come a time when results are going to matter and that time should be now. This IS the Obama economy and it is a disaster.

so...when you going to answer those questions? the above post is more of the same ol' same ol' .....divert divert divert

 

[Conservative]

so...when you going to answer those questions? the above post is more of the same ol' same ol' .....divert divert divert

Keep diverting from the Obama record. That shows exactly the problem we have in this country. The question raised has nothing to do with the threat topic and the Obama results. Obama economic policy is a failure and not even Ronald Reagan can save him.

Only in the liberal world is discussing the Obama record on a thread entitled, Make the Case Against Obama with Evidence, divert, divert, divert. don't blame you, his record is indefensible.

 

[randel]

Keep diverting from the Obama record. That shows exactly the problem we have in this country. The question raised has nothing to do with the threat topic and the Obama results. Obama economic policy is a failure and not even Ronald Reagan can save him.

Only in the liberal world is discussing the Obama record on a thread entitled, Make the Case Against Obama with Evidence, divert, divert, divert. don't blame you, his record is indefensible.

i understand conservative, i do, what has been asked of you, would require you to make an honest analysis of your posistion, would require you to put down the kool-aid, and to actually think about the talking points you constantly spew... you know that you are wrong on so many things, but to actually admit this to yourself, would bring your whole world crashing down upon your head. not having your talking points to fall back on scares the hell out of you.

 

[Conservative]

i understand conservative, i do, what has been asked of you, would require you to make an honest analysis of your posistion, would require you to put down the kool-aid, and to actually think about the talking points you constantly spew... you know that you are wrong on so many things, but to actually admit this to yourself, would bring your whole world crashing down upon your head. not having your talking points to fall back on scares the hell out of you.

I understand as well, randel, Ronald Reagan should always be the issue on a thread named, Make the case against Obama for after all it is the Reagan record that will be on the ballot in 2012 and it is Ronald Reagan that generated the results we see today even though Obama has been in office for over 2 years. Talking points? you mean the obama record? You got me there, how dare anyone bring up the Obama record when talking about the 2012 election. Let's all instead talk about Reagan since it is obvious that Obama supporters want to run on the Reagan record which I am sure is a winning argument especially for the 15 million unemployed Americans today who I know blame Reagan.

 

[randel]

I understand as well, randel, Ronald Reagan should always be the issue on a thread named, Make the case against Obama for after all it is the Reagan record that will be on the ballot in 2012 and it is Ronald Reagan that generated the results we see today even though Obama has been in office for over 2 years. Talking points? you mean the obama record? You got me there, how dare anyone bring up the Obama record when talking about the 2012 election. Let's all instead talk about Reagan since it is obvious that Obama supporters want to run on the Reagan record which I am sure is a winning argument especially for the 15 million unemployed Americans today who I know blame Reagan.

honest, back and forth debate scares you, i understand. it makes you uncomftorable if you can't control the mechanics of the debate, if you can't choose in which direction the debate will flow....i understand, honest debate terrifies you.

 

[Conservative]

honest, back and forth debate scares you, i understand. it makes you uncomftorable if you can't control the mechanics of the debate, if you can't choose in which direction the debate will flow....i understand, honest debate terrifies you.

It isn't me that controls the mechanics, it is the thread topic. You probably should read the rules. Get back to me when you want to participate i honest debate because there is nothing honest about debating Reagan in a thread about Obama but that is all you can do. Wonder what it is about the liberal ideology that creates such loyalty ?

 

[randel]

It isn't me that controls the mechanics, it is the thread topic. You probably should read the rules. Get back to me when you want to participate i honest debate because there is nothing honest about debating Reagan in a thread about Obama but that is all you can do. Wonder what it is about the liberal ideology that creates such loyalty ?

more diversion, sad, really really sad...oh well, i understand, true debate scares you. i would think that you would have no problem answering questions put to you, if, IF, you really, honestly believed your posistions were rock solid...your constant spinning and diversions show otherwise, that you have your doubts about what you claim to support.

 

[Conservative]

more diversion, sad, really really sad...oh well, i understand, true debate scares you. i would think that you would have no problem answering questions put to you, if, IF, you really, honestly believed your posistions were rock solid...your constant spinning and diversions show otherwise, that you have your doubts about what you claim to support.

I look forward to the day, although I doubt it will ever come, that you actually debate the Obama record which is what this thread is all about. Oh, well, not surprised at all. Done with this off topic back and forth as I am sure you need to have the last word.

 

[randel]

I look forward to the day, although I doubt it will ever come, that you actually debate the Obama record which is what this thread is all about. Oh, well, not surprised at all. Done with this off topic back and forth as I am sure you need to have the last word.

nah, i'll let you have the last word, at least for today...lol

 

[haymarket]

from Conservative

I keep wondering it what it is about liberalism that creates such a loyal following, one that ignores the record and continues to buy the rhetoric. Throughout this thread there hasn't been one attempt to defend the obama record but there always are attempts to divert to Reagan or Bush.

Why do you outright lie like this? Repeatedly in this thread I posted the excellent numbers of the Obama administration in slowing down the terrible rate of growth in the national unemployment rate. His predecessor had a rate over 400% higher that the one under Obama. I repeatedly boasted that in many many posts and defended that part of the Obama record.

one such example

here is the Obama record on unemployment compared with the record of the man before him - George Bush

When George Bush entered office in Jan of 2001, the unemployment rate was 4.2%.
When he left in Jan of 2009, it was 7.6%.
That is an increase of 81%.

When Barack Obama entered office in Jan of 2009, the unemployment rate was 7.6%.
The latest figure for this May was 9.1%.
That is an increase of 19%

Bush was four times worse - over 400% more - than the man you constantly criticize for growing the unemployment figures.

Why would you make a direct statement which lies about that?

 

[apdst]

from Conservative



Why do you outright lie like this? Repeatedly in this thread I posted the excellent numbers of the Obama administration in slowing down the terrible rate of growth in the national unemployment rate. His predecessor had a rate over 400% higher that the one under Obama. I repeatedly boasted that in many many posts and defended that part of the Obama record.

one such example





Why would you make a direct statement which lies about that?

The unemployment rate has gone up, since Obama has been in office. :rofl

 

[apdst]

I'm feeling inclined to vote for Obama in 2012. I'm not too impressed with the Republican line up at this point, and I'm starting to lean towards supporting him. I didn't vote for him in 2008 and I haven't really liked him much, but he did push through a repeal of DADT, which I think he may hold hostage this coming election and so I may be inclined to vote for him. You could prevent me from supporting him though. I don't really like him much, and I would love to see a good case made against him.

The only problem is I don't like vague rhetoric. I like solid evidence. I like numbers, statistics, and charts from credible sources. I like news stories that are not editorialized but report simple facts. I would like to see a case against Obama's policies based on that kind of evidence. I would like to see specifically which of his policies have failed America and why they failed. I would like to see specific examples of when he hasn't come to the table to negotiate with Republicans willing to make a legitimate compromise. I would like to see specific actions he has taken that have actually hurt the economy's ability to recover.

I have a better idea. Ask yourself what successful policies Obama can brag about in his campaign.

 

[haymarket]

The unemployment rate has gone up, since Obama has been in office. :rofl

That is not being disputed. The path the previous administration had us on was Great Depression II. President Obama prevented that disaster and has drastically slowed the rate of growth in unemployment. The rate of growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under Bush than it was Obama. But that was not the point of my post. The point was to ask why Conservative would lie about no liberal defending the Obama record when I clearly did so time after time after time.

 

[haymarket]

I have a better idea. Ask yourself what successful policies Obama can brag about in his campaign.

I just told you that.

He got Bin Laden also. I believe Republicans would call that a national security issue.

 

[apdst]

That is not being disputed. The path the previous administration had us on was Great Depression II. President Obama prevented that disaster and has drastically slowed the rate of growth in unemployment. The rate of growth in the unemployment rate was over 400% higher under Bush than it was Obama. But that was not the point of my post. The point was to ask why Conservative would lie about no liberal defending the Obama record when I clearly did so time after time after time.

So, what path was that, exactly?

 

[haymarket]

So, what path was that, exactly?

go back and reread the same sentence.

 

[apdst]

I just told you that.

He got Bin Laden also. I believe Republicans would call that a national security issue.

Yeah, but that's all has to brag about. And then, bairly, because it's not like the joint chiefs were begging him not to go after UBL. :rofl

I can see it now: "I wasted over a trillion dollars; I passed a healthcare bill that the people oppose; I promise to raise taxes; I'm living like a king, while the rest of you can hardly pay your bills; I surrendered in Afghanistan; I'm working off the books on gun bans; I killed jobs; I caused energy prices to go up, as I promised; I have 51 members of my admin that are under no Congressional oversight, making decisions; Alot of those czars are Communists."

He doesn't have anything. Get real!

 

[apdst]

go back and reread the same sentence.

So, the killing of UBL is what your hanging your hopes on? Really?!?

 

[Conservative]

So, the killing of UBL is what your hanging your hopes on? Really?!?

I am sure that the 15 million unemployed Americans are excited about Bin Laden and the fact that there are over 2 million more unemployed and almost 3 million fewer employed today than when Obama took office. All this comparison against Bush is meaningless except for those who continue to drink the kool-aid. Think those 15 million unemployed Americans care how many unemployed Bush had? Think that Bush spent over a trillion dollars in a stimulus to create "shovel ready" jobs that didn't exist all so he can claim he "saved" jobs? I would have thought that a former civics teacher understood how our govt. works and I keep wondering how GW Bush with a Democrat controlled Congress generated those negative numbers all by himself and how Obama with a Democrat Controlled Congress generated such terrible results that we have today. Unemployment higher, employment lower, lower economic growth, 4 trillion added to the debt, higher gasoline prices and increasing inflation, higher misery index yet that is a success to the Obama supporters. Wow, can't wait to see those campaign signs.