Aa
A
A
Close
Avatar universal
The speech
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/what-is-a-middle-class-job_n_2664882.html

You hear good things about the economy and then something like this pops up?  What's it going to be?  It is either better or it still stinks... I think we are trying to use too many variables to measure any real progress with the economy.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
119 Answers
Page 6 of 6
Avatar universal
Well no, as it turned out, we were hearing he was going to win by a landslide too. Turned out that was not the case. Romney was convinced and most of his followers were as well that he had it in the bag. The numbers prove that was bogus from the get go. I like everyone thought it was much closer than it turned out. When 11 pm came and they announced a president after being told it was going to be a long night? Well, yes it was a shock. But like I said we will never know will we.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
LOL...they still cannot get over that he won.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
I guess The Silver Lining is, I’m not stuck with the task of defending Romney.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Lol.
He was cute, but would truly have been a  Presidential disaster.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
Scroll up and catch up, thats not what the conversation is about.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
"but would truly have been a  Presidential disaster."
Like Teko said "we will never know will we."
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I did, it is about the election being neck to neck or not and You said the silver lining is that you don't have to defend Romney. I was agreeing and said he was cute (since ppl are so taken with the externals) but that he would have been a disaster.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
649848 tn?1484935765
Obama did win and much as I didn't like it, I was over that the next day......

"I guess The Silver Lining is, I’m not stuck with the task of defending Romney."  With you on that one.  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Is there anything relevant to chit chat about?
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
649848 tn?1484935765
Obama's "cute" too, but could be an even bigger Presidential disaster.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
Well I think I got that Yellow Toe nail under controll
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Well, you did say he was not the best contender.
I wasn't against him for being a conservative. I was against him because he demonstrated no concern for us peasants. Really that was the bottom line. His only real appeal was his good lucks. He never acted as someone who really loves his country and people.

I don't know him, I am referring to his public persona. He may be a good guy in private, I don't know.)
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Hahahaha sheesh I just realized i got you all riled...sorry lol really sorry.

I thought that we agreed more or less that the loss here was about a more conservative contender lost the election, therefore the things you hoped for in terms of economic changes wouldn't happen. So I respect that, no joking about serious worries, I am talking more about the loss of a persona. I mean did you really have an attachment to him or was it more the conservative values he represents?
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
I wasn’t attached to him in any way, shape, or form. I even admitted he was “Sub-Standard”. The point I was trying to make Romney  was Sub-Standard and through most of the campaign they were running neck and neck. This tells me Obama was also Sub-Standard. It was the first time I really didn’t have any interest in voting because of the P!ss Poor choices we had. I have never had any confidence in Obama so I’m not disappointed in him. I voted for Romney only because I knew Obama cannot lead us out and maybe by some miracle Romney could.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Lucky for everyone that you were mistaken, eh?
:)
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
I will never know if I made a mistake or not. I have never had any confidence in Obama and still don't. I would love to one day "Eat My Words" but I don't see it happening.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
Me either.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
If Obama is substandard how would you characterize George Bush?

Please, give me a break here! This is crazy talk - plain and simple.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Equal or of similar value.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
That would be Obama’s Mentor.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
Why does mentioning that you aren't in favor of Obama's policies and are doubtful of his success make one bring up George Bush?  Don't get that.  I've never cared for Obama as president and didn't vote for him either time he ran.  What does that have to do with Bush?  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
649848 tn?1484935765
"If Obama is substandard how would you characterize George Bush?"

"Equal or of similar value."

"Please, give me a break here! This is crazy talk - plain and simple."

One man's "crazy" is another man's perfectly rational.

I think we all agree that both Bush and Romney were sub-standard; many of us agree that Obama sits in the same category.  

Looks to me like a lot us might have chosen what we considered to be "the lesser of 2 evils" when we voted.........not that we really liked the candidate, just that his beliefs/policies more closely matched ours, even if not a "perfect match".  

I think that's where we run into trouble, here, a lot; the idea that everyone who doesn't view things in a certain manner is somehow as "sub-standard" as the candidates...... that couldn't be further from the truth.  I said through the entire campaign that I wasn't the least impressed with Romney and disliked Ryan even more, but the fact remains that most of their conservative views more closely matched mine.

We're are individuals; there is no right or wrong; we all form our beliefs/views/opinions/feelings based on our experiences and that's what we go on.  The hope is that everyone would be able to see more than one side of an issue.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
"Why does mentioning that you aren't in favor of Obama's policies and are doubtful of his success make one bring up George Bush?"

I was addressing the comment that Obama is a substandard President.

I'd like to have some vague idea of what the standard is - or the context in which the statement was made. Substandard necessarily means there must be a "STANDARD". If one is going to call Obama "substandard" then I would like to know where Bush stands in that poster's opinion. That would give me some frame of reference. Where does Clinton stand?

Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
Well, I didn't personally call Obama a substandard president and that is a bit of a harsh statement, I agree.  I'd have to scroll up and find the remark.  I personally am not in favor of some/many of his policies he puts forth but that is to be expected as I didn't vote for him and am more conservative in my politics.  I tend to be doubtful of this president but he IS trying to do his job.   Substandard to me means someone isn't doing their job and slacking.  

I also think that Bush was doing what he thought was best and he also was doing his job in that regard.  And Clinton as well.  

Not too many slackers in the white house as they all seem bent on shaping America as they see fit.  Maybe they don't always do a great job----  and time will tell what people in the future will think of how Obama did.  Of course, and this isn't meant to be snarky------  obama will never be allowed to fail because if he happens to do so---  it will be quickly blamed on Republicans or Bush.  Obama appears untouchable as to accountability in my eyes.  Down the road though, when all of us are done arguing about it, it will be interesting how the history books capture things.  

Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
I would say Clinton would be the one that sets the Bar for Standard. Lord knows he had a lot of flaws but if I had to pick one withen our life time, it would be Clinton. I also liked Reagan. another one with a lot of flaws but people seem to forget the mess he had to clean up behind Carter and I don't remember a whole lot of whining about it (but that was several years ago). As far as where Bush stands? Bush and Obama are on total differant sides of the Spectrum. The problem is they're equally balanced out on the See Saw of Substandard.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I believe that history will judge you very wrong on that analysis - so very very wrong.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
206807 tn?1331939784
Time will tell. But it's not looking good.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
It's not looking good for Bush - that's for sure.
The details of the selling (lying, that is) of the Iraq War are still coming out and it's looking worse and worse for Bush.

I am always confused whether you guys don't read, don't comprehend or are just too prejudiced to see it clearly. The Iraq War - nothing more ever needs to be said - unless Obama lies us into a needless war that will significantly destabilize a region of critical US strategic importance and waste immense treasure and thousands of American lives in the process. If that happens we can analyze it further.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
1310633 tn?1430227691
I wonder how the revisionist-history books will be written, in reference to Obama's spending of $6 trillion+, during his first term in office... (with nothing to show for it except a stagnant economy, unwavering unemployment#, and an unmanageable deficit).

The books will be written about Bush being a failure, blah, blah, blah, and you won't get an argument out of me. You didn't get an argument out of me DURING his presidency (as I felt he was substandard).

But Obama, the media darling and Price of Thieves... how will history view him, that put us into an estimated $23 trillion dollar hole, before he's finished in 2016?

Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I wonder how the revisionist-history books will be written, in reference to Obama's spending of $6 trillion+, during his first term in office...

They will conclude that it was too little...........but, you'll never see that coming and even when that is proven clear to everyone with a brain you'll still deny it because it's Obama and you have a real deep seated problem with him...and it's not at all about policy or economics.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Respectfully, the liberals used to belly ache about the war in Afghanistan, until it rolled through the first 5 years of Obama's tenure.  Now, not so much.  Now, Afghanistan is warranted.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Haven't you heard yet? We're getting out of Afghanistan.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I did hear that.  President Obama said we'd be out within 1 year of him being elected.  Apparently he evolved again....
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
1310633 tn?1430227691
Are you insinuating that $6 trillion spent in 4 years, wasn't enough?

Seriously... SIX TRILLION DOLLARS wasn't enough?

The fact that the moron though we could BUY OUR WAY out of this mess, was simple minded.

When the market adjusts, you LET IT adjust. You don't spend every last dollar you have, putting yourself into unmanageable debt, to try (and subsequently fail) a arrest it.

The fundamental principle of the classical theory is that the economy is self-regulating[1]. No need to throw $6T at it, which turns out to have been a horrible move, because all it did was put us into DEEPER debt.

Say's Law... read it.

[1]http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/The-Classical-Theory.topicArticleId-9789,articleId-9741.html
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
The fundamental principle of the classical theory is that the economy is self-regulating[1]. No need to throw $6T at it, which turns out to have been a horrible move, because all it did was put us into DEEPER debt.

It's wrong and has been shown to be wrong. It is not self regulating.

You would be well advised to study more than just the cliff notes on the Classical Theory.

I guess it is a start though and we have to start somewhere.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
I still don't get why we are talking about Bush.  The fact that Bush wasn't a great president means that Obama has to be?  Oh, okay.  He gets to be above Bush in terms of presidens and jobs they've done but I honestly don't think he'll go down as a great president.  I haven't seen it yet but I guess he has a few more years.  Honestly, don't get the connection between the constant bush/obama conversation.  For those who are not liberal in their politics, Obama is hard to feel great about.  This doesn't need to be more than that and wow, I hate when prejudice is thrown in there.  I'd have as much problem if Hilary were in office, I'm sure, but then I'd be prejudice against women (like all Republicans.).  

Some here are huge Obama fans and some aren't.  What's the big deal?
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
1310633 tn?1430227691
You should know better than to question the "it's Bush's fault" logic, SM.

When in doubt, and when you have zero argument or anything remotely intelligent to spew... blame it on Bush.

Don't you know that's the fall'back "defense" for the Left, here on CE?

I won't say that it's the fall'back argument for ALL of those on the Left, because there is A smart one out there that's intelligent enough not to throw that hat into the ring (ie: Wallace54).
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
Well see, that's the thing.  I know people here are smart and yet that argument comes up.  I honestly don't get that one.  ??  Oh well.

I mean, all presidents deserve respect and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to Obama.  I'm just not convinced that Obama will go down in history as a great/good president.  Time will tell.  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Did anyone watch the documentary Hubrus? Lots of questions regarding Iraq has come to light, with video of people having the conversations included. If not, I highly recommend the book.

I always did wonder tho, how we ended up in Iraq when the 911 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. That documentary sure did explain it.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
If I had to venture a guess, I think its because they think the conservatives are comparing the two. The majority of the time that the comparisons start around here is when the liberals bring it up.  

Liberals bashed Bush for 8 years and they cannot stand to hear anyone say anything about the President.  It hurts their feelings and they begin the comparisons and ask us to defend Bush.

I have seen you, el, Rglass, NG, Barb, myself and even Vance say that Bush screwed things up.  You can't find many liberals to do that.... its a rush to blame Bush.  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
I know you are an intelligent man.  I was just questioning how a comment about Obama leads to a comment so often about Bush.  I am thinking it's not that big of a deal and to be expected that not everyone, especially those who have a different take on things politically, would feel differently about any given president during their time in office.  I'm sure there were people who disliked presidents while in office that later when on to think they were actuallly good presidents and others that people supported during their term and later would describe them as not great presidents.  Who knows how it will turn out with Obama.  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
And I would only add that it seems, there are those, just as defensive when something is said about Bush as those who are defensive about this president.

Some here are huge Obama fans, and then some here are huge Bush fans and obviously equally as sensitive.

Funny how that works.

Just because President Bush is no longer in office does not mean his policies went with him when he left. Obama will make his share of mistakes as well, true. But so far the mistakes that are glaring have not been his imo.

But maybe I feel like that because I share his vision and of course is why I voted for him twice.

In the interim, yep, I support him, and altho I voted for Bush, and argued tooth and nail to his defense when he was president, he proved me wrong in that defense. Obama could very well do the same, but so far he has not.

Time will tell.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
1310633 tn?1430227691
If memory serves... Iraq was because of the supposed WMD and Saddam (and his killing off millions of his own citizens in torturous inhumane ways).

So... we started a fight with a bully, and we're still in there fighting.

I know that some tried to connect the dots from Iraq to 9/11, but I'm not sure that gained much traction.

Bush got horrible intelligence, from our "intelligence" agencies (CIA, NSA, etc) and took us into war, based on the now-proven-erroneous information.

It's Bush's fault. He should be put in jail.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
Well, that is interesting because it is true, I never enter into defense mode regarding Bush and maybe I am supposed to.  Hm.  I guess I get confused about the defensive reaction at any Obama criticism or doubts.

Oh well.  I was just confused on the subject.  Happens to me occasionally.  Not that big of a deal.  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
That's what I'm saying.  Who's defensive about Bush?  Why are we talking about Bush?  That was so like 5 years ago.  

I honestly don't see anyone defending Bush.  I said that I do believe he thought he was doing what was right for the country----  as I believe Obama is as well.  I think all presidents work from the 'right' place within themselves.  Even if they make huge mistakes.  But I have no love affair with Bush.  I don't say he's a great president and waaa if you say anything bad about him and notice no others doing that.  
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
Bush has his name brought up because he is the president that preceded this one and it was those policies that were enacted during that time that has resulted in an economic meltdown. Its nothing personal about President Bush as much as people on here like to think it is. It is simply because of the policies that are still in effect and the remaining hangover that still exists trying to straighten everything out again.

Actually, I will make a correction, I voted for both the Bush Boys. And the first one has more respect from me than the second one.

But everytime someone mentions the things that happened, coincidentally under Bush term, everyone flys into a frenzy. I really dont get it. Or everytime someone says something supporting this president, same thing, everyone flies into a frenzy. I really dont get it. It has to be something everyone takes personal, there is no other explannation that makes sense. Either that or you all simply hate everything obama.

That is truly how it appears. We cannot even have a discussion anymore because of all the sensitivity going around, so why bother trying?
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
973741 tn?1342346373
haha.  I don't know how reasonable adults can see things so differently. someone said a negative comment about obama and his presidency.   I think they said substandard as one description word that I didn't see and that's not a word I'd use but none the less as well as comments about how things will be going at the end of Obama's term and how he'll be remembered----  well 'what about bush' comes up.

It's kind of that 'well, your mother is fat" argument.  

  But . . .   this is seen completely differently by others here so again, I guess I just don't get it.  maybe a walk away for some air will help me see it differently?  I agree that a comparison did start of bush verses obama but that was after bush was thown in there like a 'but your mama is fat' comment.  ????  Okay, off for air to think think think.  WHAT am I missing?
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I think I'm following you, but the same thing can be said about Clinton before Bush.  (I am a democrat and voted for Clinton 2x, Bush1x, and Obama 2x.)  Before Clinton, there were policies that preceded him that are still in effect today.

With all of that out there, it would be far more fair to blame every administration, every congress and every senate for the last 40-50 years for the current state of affairs.  This is a decades long train wreck.

I haven't been around here too long, but I'll respectfully throw out an opinion on your second to last paragraph.  "But every time someone mentions the things that happened, coincidentally under Bush.... everyone flies into a frenzy...."  I think its because there is no defending Bush, nor Clintons deficiencies, the other Bush, Reagan, Carter.... all of those guys have a direct hand in where we're at today and the left seems to want to place everything on Bush.  It makes no sense.  

I've been a registered Democrat for 30 some years, and there is no way I could blame Bush for all of this.  Everyone, counting the current President has a hand in this.  


Why bother trying?  I keep trying because I don't quit.  Maybe I haven't been around here long enough to give up the goat.  People need to quit picking sides and have the ability to look at things reasonably.  We just have to be able to let someone have their own opinion and not be mad at it.

I'd just as soon be mad at the things I can control, like me dropping a damned irrigation pump on my foot this morning.  I've got 4 purple toes and am going to lose 2 toe nails at least.  I grabbed it one handed and the damned thing landed right on the top of my toe knuckles.... that makes me mad.

Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I didnt read that far up, sorry. I posted a wiki document regarding both presidents and their percentage of a win when they were elected, in response to someone saying half the country didnt vote for him comment and what I posted pretty much showed this has been the case more often than not. So I posted for bush and obama and their win percentages, so I guess you can blame it on me.

My point was to say lookie here! It was the same way when Bush won!

Nothing new here. There was half the country that hated him too. No biggie.
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
Avatar universal
I didnt vote for Clinton. I could not stand the man. Then, but I like him better now. I couldnt stand his wife either, Then, now I think I might even vote for her if she runs.

Im tired of the arguing, been here a long time and the passion has left me.

Who said I was mad? Did I say that?
Discussion is closed
Cancel
Comment
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
A
A
Recent Activity
649848 tn?1484935765
Blank
Barb135 commented on Nighthawk61's status
9 hrs ago
Avatar universal
Blank
Racism
9 hrs ago by brice1967
317787 tn?1473362051
Blank
Dee1956 commented on Belle313's status
Nov 19