Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12264 Followers
Terry A. Hurlbut
2953 Followers
NewsMeBack
6467 Followers
karmashockFeb 6, 2012
No one deserves a second term. No one deserves a first term. It is a privilege to serve and not a right or something you earn. Simply putting it in those terms is offensive. No one has a right to any term. A right to ask for a term? Sure... practically anyone can ask. No one deserves it.
vintage_verbenaFeb 7, 2012
You put that perfectly! Glad to be your new follower.
FrankLuskaFeb 7, 2012
I deserve a bailout, even though i don't need one, i will use the money just like wall street did to make more money, then I'll pay it back with ZERO percent interest.
What a Deal!
bwiiiFeb 6, 2012
If Obama can't close the deal and purchase his second term, Romney will be there with the exact same agenda. This year is a win-win for statists and a lose-lose for America, all the way 'round.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
It doesn't matter. when will people get this. Most of the people who are supporting Obama support him because they seem to think he has some say over domestic policy and spending. He does not. That is 100% congress. The president's role in passing laws is as a speed bump. That is all. People claim to care about domestic policy but very little attention is paid to congressional races. Obama has proven himself incapable of getting congress to work together. He's a failed leader. Time for the next man.
bwiiiFeb 6, 2012
Absolutely! Time to slap a new label on that same old can-o'soup...
norman619Feb 6, 2012
It's government soup so we already know the quality will be sub-par.
andyd273Feb 6, 2012
Just like government cheese.
It might be yellow. It might resemble cheese.
That's all I got...
countess666Feb 6, 2012
"Obama has proven himself incapable of getting congress to work together."
you can't lead people who dont want to be lead, who disagree with what you say before you even open your mouth.
no democrat could have moved the republicans to do anything productive. Clinton was far too successful at it for republicans to allow that to happen again.
and after 4 years of this gridlock... i dont really the see the democrats very willing to work with a republican president either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
Oh sure, he's reached out and tried to lead...that's why people in his OWN PARTY are complaining that he governs as an aloof college professor.
This from Democratic Congressman Dennis Cardoza:
"The president’s disinterest in input from those outside his inner circle is costing him many wasted opportunities. Recently, a senator told me Obama went to his/her state, but issued an invitation for the senator to attend the event only the day before. “I represent a must-win state and lead the president in approval ratings by nearly 20 points. He was totally off-message for what my people wanted to hear. Doesn’t the White House get it?"
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/cardozas-corner/198861-the-professorial-president
chassupFeb 6, 2012
No, no second term. he doesn't deserve it, and we can't afford it.
dan316Feb 6, 2012
It takes a lot of gutsand arrogance for President Obama to say he "deserves" a second term. That's for the people to decide. And the way the GOP primary is going, it's looks like once again we're not going to have too much of choice for president this coming election. In a race between Obama and Romney, it doesn't matter in my opinion who wins as probably few steps will be taken to alleviate the national debt. The combination of this debt and unfunded future obiligations will be major contributing factors to this country's demise. These problems can't continue to be ignored or passed on to future generations.
Dan Annweiler
CEO & Editor of http://emergencysurvivalblog.us
grannysrightFeb 6, 2012
No!
markglFeb 6, 2012
No way.
ferretmanFeb 7, 2012
No, he doesn't.
That was easy.
forchristaloneFeb 6, 2012
I don't like politics but him signing ACTA and NDAA are just unacceptable to me. We need to send a message to our presidents that this is not ok.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
Unfortunately I have absolutely no doubt that a republican would have signed the bill in a second, and would not have added the signing statement about the implications of the law. There were two attempts to remove the crappy parts of the NDAA in the senate - both were struck down by the republicans.
So this would not send a message to anybody. I think a better thing to do is e-mail your senator and kick him out if he voted for that provision in NDAA.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
andyd273Feb 8, 2012
Any senator that voted to keep NDAA the way it is should be voted out of office.
And any president that didn't veto it instantly should be too.
elimgarakFeb 8, 2012
Agreed on the first one, ambivalent on the second one. I would be game if there was somebody better. Unfortunately all alternatives suck worse. And as I said, I have no doubt that any republican would not veto the bill either, considering how the votes turned out.
andyd273Feb 8, 2012
I mean any. Democrat, Republican, whoever.
"Well, the other side would have voted for it too, so if we're going to have a president that wants to arbitrarily throw citizens into deep dark holes, it might as well be the one in my party."
Your logic frightens me.
elimgarakFeb 8, 2012
So what is your solution? All of the candidates in the next election will be people that would have voted for this thing IMHO. Obama at least added a signing statement. I don't think Mitt Romney would have.
What do you think I should do? Not vote, and thus affect nothing? Not try to improve the situation even a little bit?
elimgarakFeb 8, 2012
LOL, DPs love to deny reality. This is all in the senate voting record. If you don't believe me, go look it up.
andyd273Feb 8, 2012
Actually, kick them all out from both the house and senate, and replace them all with people that haven't been corrupted yet. Then put term limits in place. If you replace them fast enough, it will cost to much to have to keep buying the replacements.
elimgarakFeb 8, 2012
I doubt that it will ever cost too much to keep buying replacements. There is too much profit in owning a senator. The ROI (Return on Investment) for senators and representatives is too high.
Both of my senators are democrats and voted for removal of that clause. Therefore I am somewhat ambivalent about removing them as well - at least they tried, even though they still voted for the bill afterward. They could not have blocked it, though - they did not have nearly enough votes for that.
andyd273Feb 8, 2012
Both my senators voted for this bill, (also both democrat).
I don't understand that "at least they tried". Thats even worse!
"Hey, I know that this bill has some bad stuff in it, and I really want that stuff removed! No? Ok, you win, I'll vote for it."
Seriously??
Easy solution: Retroactive 2 term limit, both house and senate. If you've been in more than 2 terms your out.
The hope is that if you get rid of all the corrupt, rotten apples that would normally spoil any fresh apples quickly, the fresh ones stay fresh longer, and maybe their morals can survive until close to the end of their terms.
I would be optimistic enough to guess that most politicians start off wanting to do right by the people that voted them in, but once they get in and see so many others taking bribes and cheating the system, it corrupts them faster. get rid of the rot and it'll probably take a little longer for that "At least I got mine" attitude to take hold.
Ethics classes might be a good idea too. And maybe ethics audits. If you get to much pork, you get a mark. To many marks and you lose your job.
elimgarakFeb 8, 2012
"Seriously??"
Yup. Save your strength and political capital for battles that you can win. Wasting resources on unwinnable causes is useless. Worse than useless if you not voting for some bill may be used against you later in a campaign - e.g. to claim that you don't support the troops because you wouldn't vote for war funding.
Angry_MuppetFeb 6, 2012
The presidency isn't a "second chance" club. the nation was collectively hoodwinked in '08, choosing style over substance.
We need firm, decisive leadership, not a capitulating excuse maker.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
ROFL - you would rather have the guy who picked Palin as his running mate? That is what's known in politics as "shooting yourself in the balls".Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
friday1970Feb 6, 2012
And you voted for a guy who picked Biden as his running mate?
norman619Feb 6, 2012
You gotta love the humor.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Yup. Any day of the week. Biden is at least competent - got re-elected 7 times for senator in his state, served as chairman on three separate committees. He hasn't done anything visible during his vice presidency to make himself shine, but that's his job. The worst you can say about him (as far as I am aware) is that he is prone to gaffes and doesn't always stay on message.
Palin is a disaster at pretty much everything she decided to do in her entire life. She single-handedly took the term "retard" back. Wasn't even able to finish off one term as a governor because she is a "maverick". She is basically the Kardashian of the political world. Etc.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
friday1970Feb 7, 2012
"Biden is at least competent....he is prone to gaffes and doesn't always stay on message"
Yep, you contradicted yourself very well. Congrats.
And yes, Palin could have been a far better VP than our worthless Sir Gaff-a-lot veep we have now.
"We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt" -Biden, july 16, 2009
That right there, in itself, is exactly why we are 15 trillion in debt, of which 5 trillion can be blamed squarely on the democrats in both congress and the executive branches.
Would Palin been any better about pushing for legislation to reduce the debt? That remains a question no one has answer for. But, Biden. s**t, he hasn't done a damn thing as VP. Just mouth off and produce gaffes with each appearance. He's an embarrassment!
You can try to make the claim about Palin. But, one huge difference. Palin doesn't hold any government office position. Biden, as a VP, should know better. But, you know, he's has a higher IQ than you! He said so.
So, yes, Obama doesn't deserve a second term. Everything he's promised, when trying to run as a conservative during 2008, he's broken, and ran the opposite directions. You voted for "change" and instead, you got GWB v2.0, only stronger and bigger!!
But, you're too partisan to realize it. I feel sorry for you.
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
Comparison of the two was done in 2008 and if you still think Palin is the creme that surfaces when you compare them, you need to reconsider you deductive reasoning skills.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
and a guy who's rear end was kicked by Palin in the VP debates. LMAO
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
"Yep, you contradicted yourself very well. Congrats."
Only if you assume that the job of a VP is to only talk in public, never making a single mistake.
"And yes, Palin could have been a far better VP than our worthless Sir Gaff-a-lot veep we have now."
... How do you figure? Evidence?
"That right there, in itself, is exactly why we are 15 trillion in debt, of which 5 trillion can be blamed squarely on the democrats in both congress and the executive branches."
Umm... Kynesian economics. Look it up. It makes far more sense then cutting the budget, adding 10-20% more unemployed and turning this into an actual depression instead of a recession. Austerity measures would have doubled the GDP loss just by cutting government spending.
"s**t, he hasn't done a damn thing as VP."
First of all, you do realize that the only job of a VP is to do what the President says, right? He is the president's assistant.
Second, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Vice_Presidency
Look it up. That's what Biden did. I very much doubt that Palin could have done a fraction of that. She has virtually no experience in anything.
"Everything he's promised, when trying to run as a conservative during 2008, he's broken, and ran the opposite directions."
Demonstrably wrong. This has been repeated many, many times - do pay attention.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
32% of promises kept, 33% in the works, 10% compromise, and only 11% broken.
"But, you're too partisan to realize it. I feel sorry for you."
Right back at you. There is an organization tracking these facts - why are you ignoring it and repeating such falsehoods?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Angry_MuppetFeb 6, 2012
Where exactly did I promote McCain?
Then again, maybe if we decoupled the presidency / vice presidency election and had the run independently.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Well, you did say that "the nation was collectively hoodwinked in '08" - that implies that you think that the other guy would have done a better job. Unless you wanted one of the other presidential candidates to win in the primaries?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
yeah, the nation was hoodwinked by the MSM in 2008. They didn't vet Obama. WTF don't you understand. You till don't realize that Obama was selected and not elected because dolts such as yourself looked no further than the MSM told them to. You and the rest of the liberal are a disgrace.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Once again, "hoodwinked" implies that you think that the other guy would have done a better job. What part of that sentence confuses you? Unless you are saying that the nation was tricked into selecting the right guy for the job?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
hoodwinked is the MSM looking the other way, not vetting and not vetting this colossal failure of a jackass
pc25Feb 6, 2012
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hoodwinked
hoodwink [ˈhʊdˌwɪŋk]
vb (tr)
1. to dupe; trick
2. Obsolete to cover or hide
[originally, to cover the eyes with a hood, blindfold]
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Verb 1. hoodwink - influence by slyness
beguile, juggle
cheat, rip off, chisel - deprive somebody of something by deceit; "The con-man beat me out of $50"; "This salesman ripped us off!"; "we were cheated by their clever-sounding scheme"; "They chiseled me out of my money"
2. hoodwink - conceal one's true motives from especially by elaborately feigning good intentions so as to gain an end; "He bamboozled his professors into thinking that he knew the subject well"
bamboozle, lead by the nose, play false, pull the wool over someone's eyes, snow
deceive, lead astray, betray - cause someone to believe an untruth; "The insurance company deceived me when they told me they were covering my house"
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2011 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
hoodwink
verb deceive, trick, fool, cheat, con (informal), kid (informal), mislead, hoax, dupe, gull (archaic), delude, swindle, rook (slang), bamboozle (informal), take (someone) for a ride (informal), lead up the garden path (informal), sell a pup, pull a fast one on (informal), cozen, befool Many people are hoodwinked by the so-called beauty industry.
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002
Translations
Select a language:
-----------------------
hoodwink
v hoodwink [ˈhudwiŋk]
to trick or deceive.
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2010 K Dictionaries Ltd.
describes perfectly what the MSM did in 2006 trough 2008
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Congratulations. You have mastered the advanced copy skill of copying and pasting.
Now how about using it in context? In this context the idea is the people were tricked - but tricked to do what? If you are saying that they were tricked to vote for Obama, and since an election is a zero-sum game, that by necessity means that you are advocating for McCain. IE saying that McCain would have been a better president.
Go look up the concept of "zero sum game" if you need a further explanation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
congratulations dancing around the subject of the MSM deceiving the American public by not vetting this clown.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html
Halperin at Politico/USC conf.: 'extreme pro-Obama' press bias
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.
"It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
stupid doesn't begin to scratch the surface of how pathetic you people truly are.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
ROFL. So everyone for Obama was part of the MSM media. What is Fox and the republican media then - mavericks? Tiny weaklings of the media world that are being bullied by everybody else?
Despite being the most successful news channel on TV, with the highest ratings?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
what don't you understand about the self admitted bias for OBAMA
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
I don't understand:
1. Half of the MSM was against Obama, and would have done anything to find dirt on him. So how exactly was the country tricked if the biggest news channel in the country was for the other guy? Did they trick us with their own incompetence and inability to find anything on Obama?
2. The only other option is McCain/Retard - not a viable option. So this "trick" - if one actually happened - was not much of a trick. At worst it pushed the country into electing somebody who is not a complete idiot. That doesn't really count as a trick in my book.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
of course you don't because you're a kool aid drinking, obama worshipping dolt.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
"of course you don't because you're a kool aid drinking, obama worshipping dolt."
Umm... Yea, of course, this is all my fault. It's not that you can't explain it - because the whole underlying concept is idiotic - everybody else is just stupid and crazy for failing to see your brilliance. </s>Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
andyd273Feb 8, 2012
I would say you hit it right on the head. Forget Obama/Bidden vs McCain/Palin.
What about Obama vs Hillary?
I remember some article that talked about how "The powerful people" (whoever they might be) got together and decided that they wanted to support Obama in the primaries instead of Hillary, even though at that point she was way up in the polls.
And while it's probably mostly conspiracy theory, it does make one wonder a bit.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
Hoodwinked, or shown to door #2, when door #1 was deemed hopeless? Did you ever listen to Mc Cain Palin?
leonard2Feb 6, 2012
Yes, and the were preferable over your Obamessiah.
usarugulaFeb 6, 2012
Are you talking about John "The Fundamentals of Our Economy Are Strong" McCain?
pc25Feb 6, 2012
the fundamentals of the economy are strong and that' where Obama screwed the pooch with his policies. He interfered with the natural self correcting cycles of the market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_rDrd97sY
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
In his inaugural speech President Obama said:
"We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished."
In other words...the fundamentals of our economy are strong --the exact point that John McCain was pilloried for making during the campaign, and which you're regurgitating here.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
No he doesn't.
anub1sFeb 6, 2012
I'd say he deserves a second term far more than any of the clowns the GOP has put forth as candidates deserve even a first term. The GOP scares the absolute s**t out of me these days, I can't rightly vote for their candidate (out of the current lineup) in good conscience. I didn't vote for him the first time around, but it looks like I might this time.
lalongecarabineFeb 6, 2012
Ouch! I'm afraid you're right. Still don't think he deserves another term though.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
I don't know - IMHO he has done an OK job. Mistakes were made, but overall I think he has done well.
craigreedFeb 6, 2012
Very well given the circumstances of his presidency, people can say they had a majority for 2 years all they want but 60 seats doesn't equal a guaranteed pass on anything he wants to put through, not all democrats are liberal... or have courage to govern, even today there are those in the party who think that if they just pretend to be republicans everyone will like them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rastas11Feb 6, 2012
Considering the damage he has done to our country in the last 3 years, he doesn't deserve another 4 minutes more.
usarugulaFeb 6, 2012
You call three years of private sector growth damage? What do you consider the crash under Bush? Mission accomplished?
If you want to argue that the growth isn't fast enough, go right ahead. But don't argue forward is backward. You make your side look like fools.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
rastas does consider progress made by Obama, damage. (You see, he has total blinders on.)
pc25Feb 6, 2012
you mean private sector growth that still finds people dropping out of the work force
pc25Feb 6, 2012
I wouldn't talk abut blinders u2. Obama serves up a crap sandwich and you think it is a gourmet meal.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Compared to Bush, Obama is one of the best presidents ever. And Bush got a second term.
Also, Obama himself has not done any damage. At worst he has failed to prevent some of the damage that was already happening due to the recession (which was caused by Bush too, come to think of it - started in 2007-2008).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
talk about delusional.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
@PC25
Yes, Mr. Delusional, you wanted to talk about something?
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
ROTFLMAO! DPs really went through this thread, didn't they. -21. That's pretty hilarious, not to mention desperate.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
your comment above should be included in Oxford' s definition of delusional.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
typical lib response. Change the subject.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
ROTFLMAO! A typical (and typically empty of meaning) Replublitard comment requires a typical response.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
whats wrong Dimcrat....changing the subject again...Pathetic..
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
<yawn> If there was a subject to this conversation, I would stick to it. All that you've got is a string of vague passive-aggressive insults without an ounce of substance to them.
Say WHY you think I am delusional, and support your POV with an explanation and facts - then we have a conversation. A topic to discuss. Without that, there is no topic of discussion, and all your blathering amounts to deep and penetrating comments on the nature of reality like "neener-neener, youre a weener".
And now you are surprised that I don't deign to pay attention to such arguments.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
rastas11Feb 6, 2012
This pent up OUTRAGE must be translated into VOTES in 2012. VOTE......This fool and his minions MUST GO.
rastas11Feb 6, 2012
ANYONE BUT OBAMA
arpadFeb 6, 2012
Second term? Hell, it's the third, fourth, fifth, ad infinitum term that Obama's looking forward to if he can figure out a way to swing it, that ought to worry people.
Remember, Obama's idol is FDR - lousy on the economy and lousy on the war - but more then two, measly terms. FDR would be the president yet but for that little "death" thing. *That's* why Obama admires FDR so, for being the closest thing to a king this country's ever had.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 6, 2012
An amemdment to limit presidents to two term limits was not added until 1947. It seems your contention is not with FDR, but with the signers of the Constitution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
Matt Lauer the Obama shill on the Obama shilling network.
bluto36Feb 6, 2012
funny i thought it was on Lauer's chin
oh you said shill... yes it was
aadyssFeb 6, 2012
More Cap and Trade battles, more Card Check battles, more excessive spending battles...no thanks.
lalongecarabineFeb 6, 2012
No,but thanks for asking.
ultimisFeb 6, 2012
Obama was a ineffective leader and every policy he enacted to "help the economy" provably showed *no effect*. Before a single dollar of the stimulus was spent the economy was already in the process of rebounding from the recession. Once the money started flowing we saw the rebound slow than stagnate. His leadership and his policies have been failures.
The constant mantra from the democrats that the GOP field is bad is utter bulls**t. The GOP field could be made up of Clinton, Kennedy and FDR and they would still be spouting that tired old line. They are partisan hacks and are using the tried and true method of repeating a lie until it sticks.
The *only* candidate that I think would be less effective than Obama at restoring this country would be Ron Paul (as he has no support in either party to get his domestic agenda going).
laurahoustonFeb 6, 2012
GOP has not passed one single jobs bill yet.....imagine how fast the economy would improve if for example, the construction start-ups bill would pass gops 'we hate obama' obstruction.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
heathermgilbertFeb 6, 2012
GOP has passed 30+ jobs bills that are currently languishing in the Democrat controlled Senate.
Ouzel7Feb 6, 2012
I see that the propaganda is working on laura. The Dems have basically said that their strategy will be to do nothing. They even want to convey somehow to the truly STUPID that conservatives control the Senate. The Senate just does nothing and points to the GOP and says, "Waaah... they are obstructing...when it's actually the reverse."
pc25Feb 6, 2012
didn't Obama make his message clear to you guys? the only legitimate jobs bill i a dem jobs bill.
stevanoskiFeb 6, 2012
I'm sure laura will apologize now.
chroniccolonicFeb 6, 2012
I could not agree more. Obama needs a second term...as a community organizer.
kasha34Feb 6, 2012
Community organizers can do a lot of damage. I grew up with one and witnessed it first hand.
chroniccolonicFeb 6, 2012
agreed...but at least his damage would be more localized.
kasha34Feb 6, 2012
Yes, you're right.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
Ah, that's why you hate liberals! You have parental issues! It all makes sense now!
kasha34Feb 7, 2012
No, that's why I CAN stand liberals. But my parents were way past liberal. They were card carrying Communists. And they sincerely meant well.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
So were my parents, although mainly because they had no choice. I think I still have my USSR passport somewhere.
kasha34Feb 7, 2012
They were party members in the USSR? You know that the majority of Soviet citizens were not party members, right?
Anyway, my parents chose it. Common for children of the Depression.
My mother was even managing editor for the Daily World (Daily Worker) when she died.
It was interesting hearing her rationalize why Communist countries using barbed wire and guns to keep their citizens IN was justified.
I've often wondered what my mother would have thought of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
hey Dr Phil where did you serve your residency
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
In the dark recesses of your mind!
clickfireFeb 6, 2012
Or as an Al Green impersonator.
KapsiotFeb 6, 2012
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, obama.
rastas11Feb 6, 2012
I concur
mrmapleFeb 6, 2012
I've enjoyed the lack of drama. I've enjoyed the cooperative support we gave that brought down Gadhafi, I've enjoyed the end of the Iraq war. I've enjoyed the upward trending economy, and his genuine effort to focus on centrist issues and try to unite who he can. I've enjoyed the partial recovery of respect from other countries, and the focus on keeping America in the top 10 where we can.
I've enjoyed the lack of utter nonsense... no "I'm the decider" moments to be seen. I appreciate the conservative approach to all potentially revolutionary issues... I'm hoping that he would take more liberal initiative in a second term, and I believe he would feel more freedom to do what he though was right. I strongly feel our liberties are being eroded in the name of safety, and Obama is giving the CIA and Marines the support they need to target those who would kill innocent people in the name of religious correctitude.
I've enjoyed the up-and-up bookkeeping, where all of America's money is on the same set of books. I can't believe Gingrich said he would take the war efforts back off the books. That's the sort of bulls**t that kills the economy.
I really appreciate the general higher level of integrity, and not just a blatant show of support for all the corporations that donated money. Obama's advantage of many small donations really tells me he's in touch with the grassroots as much as he can be.
I will put a lot more effort into getting him re-elected than I ever did to get him elected. The alternative is unthinkable after four sane years.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
insomniax2Feb 6, 2012
This:
"The alternative is unthinkable after four sane years."
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
It is more honest to share all the things he has done well with what he hasn't of course but it is nice to be reminded of what he has done right.
If McCain/Palin made it in I can't help but wonder how farther down the toilet we would have went.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
I also find that interesting, both Mac and MS P love war and military power, how many more wars could we be in? Mac said at a Romney event, Obama has turned us around.
He was correct, for one minute, wasn't he?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
leonard2Feb 6, 2012
You've been drinking the kool-aid. NDAA 2012, ACTA, Obamacare, execution of US citizens without trial, Attacking sovereign nations without congressional approval...and thats just a scratch on the surface.
Obama doesn't need re-elected, he needs impeached.
mrmapleFeb 6, 2012
Obamacare is going to stop Insurance companies from doing things like refusing to help someone with a pre-existing condition. What's the specific problem that you see with it?
Attacking sovereign nations, you mean like taking out Osama Bin Laden? He actually _didn't_ attack Libya if you happened to notice. He supported an international effort at stopping Gaddafi from attacking his own people with weapons of war.
He's exactly the kind of leader that I hope we'll have more of in the future.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
Obviously, you do not have a child in college, who can now be covered under your company plan. So much good, has come from Obama cares!
pc25Feb 6, 2012
Obama extending puberty to the age of 26......
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
Have you hit it yet? From your spelling and inability to explain your positions, it doesn't sound like it.
stevanoskiFeb 7, 2012
It seems to me he has made his points quite soundly and maybe you have difficulty accepting any positions that may deviate from your polarized views.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
No, I disagree. Most of his posts to me today have been sentence fragments without punctuation and consisting primarily of passive-aggressive insults. Unless his point was to solely insult me, I don't think he has succeeded.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
off course you disagree. The typical squirmin vermin liberal tactic. Ignore facts, change the subject, and attack.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
Fact: you insulted me a number of times without provocation. You ignored that fact.
Fact: you are unable or unwilling to properly use punctuation. You ignored that fact.
Fact: it took 3-4 exchanges to finally pull out some objection by you to some of the things I said today. You ignored that fact.
Fact: you still have not explained why you don't consider the biggest "news" station in the country - Fox - to be part of the MSM, and blame the MSM for not discovering some deep, dark secrets of Obama. Even though I asked you twice. You ignored that fact.
Fact: you attacked me, not the other way around. You constantly insult me without provocation, instead of staying on topic, and refuse to explain your positions. You ignored that fact.
Done.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
really? check the timeline hotshot, as always a lib doesn't like it when someone pushes back. Good little Alinsky dicisple, play the victim card. As I mentioned ignore facts, change the subject and attack.
ShovelbabyFeb 6, 2012
"I've enjoyed the cooperative support we gave that brought down Gadhafi,"
Real life stories rarely end in "they lived happily ever after"... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/5/egypt-sends-43-ngo-workers-including-19-americans-/#disqus_thread
mrmapleFeb 6, 2012
That's very sad, but about Egypt. and starts with the words, "Ignoring a stern US threat." I fail to see your point.
I was comparing what Obama's done to what happens when a president really does attack a sovereign nation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_WarComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
FPSmotoFeb 6, 2012
No, he does not.
u2canfailFeb 6, 2012
I agree, at the time of the last Super Bowl we had no idea how bad things were. I am glad to see growth, and new jobs.
In my small town, companies are hiring. The companies that are hiring are automotive suppliers, the little companies that supply the giants. GM, Chrysler, Ford, Honda, and all the others. Without Obama's decision to help, these small firms would not have made it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
macliberalFeb 6, 2012
And when you consider that he did it at a time when the repubs were sabotaging both him and the economy, you have to admit that his achievement is stunning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 6, 2012
I always find it odd that people think that one man, or woman, has such power to do such great things.
I think that instead of heaping praise on a President, whoever they may be, that people should thank corporations, small business men and women , banks, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and capitalism. Most of those the far left demonizes these for some reason but will credit those people's hard work and risk to the President of the United States. I find that stunning, not any achievements of Obama. Reality has disappeared for many.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
all the organizations that Obama has effectively neutered.
tkosFeb 6, 2012
Seems to me (as a Canadian) the first term for any President is used for dealing with what the previous one left behind. The second term is where they shine or fail.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
insomniax2Feb 6, 2012
I don't think Americans can take a step back and see the bigger picture like we might be able to. They seem to be too entrenched with their Red & Blue/ Liberal & Conservative, GOP & Dems mentality.
It sounds like they're being force fed it 24/7 so I can't blame them!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mredofcourseFeb 6, 2012
I'm a republican, but not in the way the religious right has hijacked the party. Overall I approve of Obama's job. I'd give him a B+, only subtracting points, ironically for not being strong enough on the left side of some issues that matter to me.
I'm curious as to what some of the "No he doesn't" people here actually think about him beyond some sort of ditto-head response.
"Deserve" may not be the right word here. Why would anyone think America didn't make the right choice over McCain/Palin, and why is he not the right choice over any of the current GOP candidates?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kjeffvFeb 6, 2012
"I'm a republican, but not in the way the religious right has hijacked the party."
That's called a "RiNO" everywhere in the civilized world. Completely blank on the the neo-con hijacking of the Repubs, arncha? `S OK; it's been going on only in the last 50 yrs or so: Try to keep up.
ncmusicFeb 6, 2012
RINO is such a useless term it should be redefined. RINO = Rino In Name Only
kjeffvFeb 6, 2012
I agree: The Left has fallen down on the job of hijacking this particular political term. You have contributed mightily to the cause. Here's your Kool-Aid.
ncmusicFeb 6, 2012
The term is so misused and abused it's all bust lost it's meaning. The Republican party is full of rhetoric about being fiscally conservative and anyone who falls outside of that line is considered a RINO. Well if the whole party gets into power and spends like a Democrat is supposed to does that make the majority of the party the RINOs or the minority. It's a term that should be used on minority representation of the party, meaning that they don't really represent the rest of the party (Ron Paul for example). Mean while the party is nominating Romney, is he a RINO? A beacon of fiscal and social conservatism? No so where does that leave the party? Does he represent them or doesn't he?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kjeffvFeb 6, 2012
Oops! Give back your credit for a cup of `Aid. Give On`n´On`n´On Anon a try; then read this☞
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/02/tale-of-two-republican-parties.html
ncmusicFeb 6, 2012
Interesting article. The author seems to agree with my assessment that the party is torn between two factions and only one of them is actually fiscally conservative while the other arm seems to only claim they are. Now if someone wants to start labeling people RINOs I think they need to prove that person doesn't actually represent the party, and to me it's not just important to say they don't represent the party rhetoric (smaller government) but actual policies. There is no evidence that Republican's in the last decade were actually interested in shrinking government but instead more unfunded social spending and military spending.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
inajeepFeb 6, 2012
Do you you know what I find deserving? An honest discussion without spinning the submitted title.
Have the GOP political troupe who flock to Bett become more than just mass bury or diggers and contribute to a discussion because it seems the same thing occurs each time their attention is given to an article. Group of buries without any comments other than the same few? Makes you wonder don't it? Or you can just bury and change your account to the next one...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 6, 2012
hehe, I think it's funny and actually helpfull to see what issues the GOP hates to have exposed. They must hate the internet and wish it destroyed. Look how most of gop media doesn't allow free comments for example.
They pay media billions to promte their lies... and sure hate the most simple FREE truthefull slogans like FOX LIESComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drcordycepsFeb 7, 2012
If you can't see a pattern with these comments being dug/burried, then you haven't heard of the digg patriots.
penglustFeb 6, 2012
I'll definitely be voting for Obama considering the class of clowns the repubs have to offer.
pdx_diggerFeb 6, 2012
My $.02 (and it's probably worth even less than that!)
I do believe that President Obama took a bad situation and in some ways improved it, and in some ways did not. A lot of what is contributing to our huge defecit spending were programs and policies put in place by folks other than him (Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars, tax breaks, etc.) that simply continued to trend during his first 3 years. I consider folks that blame the entirety of the defecit and debt going up over Obama to be just spinmeisters who are trying to change the focus of the conversation. The stimulus, although expensive, has been shown to be at least somewhat effective...and I believe that McCain would have done something similar, although probably not as large. Overall, although I can find fault in some of the President's decisisons and demonstrated leadership over the last 3 years, I am not extremely disappointed in his work thusfar.
I do agree that there is evidence of failed leadership by him not being able to get congress to work together, and him not being able to work with congress. Bill Clinton seems to have a much better track record in that respect, and a lot more got done during his time in office as a result. I do, however, PERSONALLY believe that the deck is stacked against President Obama in that respect. I believe that the Republican controlled House has made it very clear that they are unwilling to compromise at all on most issues...and in order to stay on even ground with those across the aisle, the Democrats have decided to do the same thing. In the Senate, the minority party has become the majority by using the supermajority rule to stop any piece of legislation that they find the slightest bit objectionable (and they object to many things that will bring any kind of credibility to the President of the United States). This is why Congress' approval rating is so low. They suck...period.
Anyway, I believe that he would be a lot more effective in a second term if a few things would happen:
1. He should get rid of Biden. That guy is a liability.
2. I really would be comfortable if the supreme court would invalidate PPACA (Healthcare Reform Bill) and allow him to start over next year on real healthcare reform that will look toward cost cutting and expanding the reach of healthcare to all Americans. Although I was excited about PPACA at first (and I work in the health insurance industry) I'm not as big of fan at the moment...mainly because of public misperception. At this point, I believe that PPACA is going to be a liability for him, too, but mainly because people don't understand it.
3. Congress (especially those houses controlled by Republicans) would hopefully understand that if he DOES get reelected, they will not benefit anymore by not working with him. He can't get reelected again after 2012, so there isn't as much of a benefit from shutting down his every idea (even the good ones) to score political points.
4. (and i know this is going to happen)...people would just stop LYING about him. No President is perfect...and this one is no exception. But if you do a cursory glance at sites like Politifact, FactCheck, Snopes, etc. I believe you'll find that there are more lies and misinformation spread about this President (and his wife!) than there have been about any President in the past. I was thinking that would be a great Masters thesis for someone majoring in Sociology or Political Science...it's just incredible how many discredited lies there are about Obama floating around out there. (BTW, before anyone gets their underwear in a bunch over that last statement, I acknowledge that there are plenty of lies about every politician of every stripe...but my personal opinion that it's worse about our current one...).
Anyway, I am an amateur when it comes to politics...I watch and read many different news sites, to include Fox. I hate that the Politics section of my favorite news site (Digg) is saturated with pseudo-news organizations that are nothing more than loudspeakers for the extreme wings of both political parties....but I am optimistic that the majority of our great country can only handle so much more negativity and things will turn around. At least I hope so.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 7, 2012
You are being far too reasonable for Digg. Stop it.
pdx_diggerFeb 7, 2012
Sorry. I forgot that you get really dugg down when you are too insightful.
jerroldsFeb 6, 2012
He deserves a first time, in which i mean all the government branches at least try to support him. The amount of obstructionism and all out right/left extremism is ridiculous.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
andyd273Feb 6, 2012
He signed NDAA into law, allowing the government to kidnap citizens and hold them as long as they want without charge, and without trial.
He supports ACTA, which will shove every bad bill that the MAFIAA is unable to get through congress down our throats all at once, and without any input from the people (us).
All of this stuff is being done in secret, behind closed doors, without oversight from the voters.
It's almost as if he doesn't trust the people to allow him to do what he wants...
Should we seriously trust him to have our backs for another 4 years?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craigreedFeb 6, 2012
He did turn around the economy, it's turning as we speak.
norman619Feb 6, 2012
Here's the truth:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trimtabs-explains-why-todays-very-very-suspicious-nfp-number-really-down-29-million-past-2-mont
It's amazing how many diggers here are so eager to swallow the government propaganda.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 6, 2012
that article is questioning the normal seasonal adjustments that are made every year? why now? why at all? its done every year and works reasonably well.
this year the adjustment after Christmas was smaller then normal, so that means less people that were hired for the holiday season got fired again afterwards.
that's a improvement, even if in actual numbers less people are employed now then during the holiday season.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 6, 2012
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html
real unemployment rate i 11%
countess666Feb 7, 2012
so?
those numbers are lower then they were 2.5 years ago, using the same technique.
you can compare unemployment between different years but only using the same technique.
any sane way of measuring unemployment would come to roughly the same conclusion as any other.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
how freaking clueless are you. It means they're lying to you. You and the rest of the dolts on digg bear full responsibility for the state this country is in. You voted this disaster into office.
countess666Feb 7, 2012
"how freaking clueless are you."
apparently you are pretty clueless about statistics.
"It means they're lying to you."
no, they aren't
you dont agree with the methodology they use, but as long as they use the same methodology every year (and they do) it doesn't really matter. you can compare the yearly results to each other, and they aren't lying.
you can say, using your methodology, that unemployment is now 11%. so?
what was it last year or 3 years ago, using that same methodology. that's important and relevant to know in terms of the presidents performance.
what your methodology says unemployment is now compared to the government standard isn't relevant at all to the question about the presidents performance.
now watch me get dugg down for trying to bring some facts and proper scientific methods into this discussion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
you mean 11% true unemployment, and under-employment close to 20%.
countess666Feb 7, 2012
"you mean 11% true unemployment, and under-employment close to 20%."
again, 11% using your methodology.
what was it 3 years ago? what was it 2 years ago?
without those numbers your numbers are pretty meaningless in judging how the president did.
pc25Feb 8, 2012
It's not my methodology, it's the methodology that the Washington Post has used in it's calculation in determining the actual unemployment number. That 11% number was referenced in several blog lat week. This week WaPo's estimated have put the unemployment figure at a staggering 10%.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/07/wapo-pops-obamas-bubble-if-unemployment-rate-included-those-who-want-jobs-but-stopped-looking-it-would-be-9-9-not-8-3/
WaPo Pops Obama’s Bubble: “If Unemployment Rate Included Those Who Want Jobs But Stopped Looking It Would Be 9.9%, Not 8.3%”…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/unemployment-drop-still-leaves-low-skill-workers-behind/2012/02/05/gIQA5RSFvQ_story.html
ROCKLEDGE, Fla. (WaPo) — The nation’s jobless rate has declined to its lowest level in three years, a fact that has left Jamie Bean, an unemployed air-conditioner repairman, feeling more left out than ever.
Bean, 36, lost his job in December. Now he is scrambling to keep up with child-support payments to his wife, who is also unemployed. “As it stands now, I can’t afford to get divorced,” he said, managing a wry smile.
Bean’s predicament is not unlike that of many people who have a high school education or less. Not only were they hit especially hard by the recession but they have continued losing ground in the recovery that has followed.
By disproportionate numbers, these Americans have given up looking for work, making the nation’s recovery appear better than it is. If the unemployment rate counted the 2.8 million people who want jobs but have stopped looking, it would sit at 9.9 percent rather than its current 8.3 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-11-percent/2011/12/12/gIQAuctPpO_blog.html
The real unemployment rate is 11 percent
FalalisFeb 6, 2012
The super rich are dangling a few different looking puppets in front of us, and most people are arguing that one is actually better than another.
The game is rigged. The savior you're hoping will come into (or stay in) office, will not undo those programs you hate. They will do more things you hate, and you will make excuses to justify their actions, because they're wearing your team's colors. Wake up and support someone who isn't from a long line of candidates shoved in your face by the .1%.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
laurahoustonFeb 6, 2012
yes the President deserves another term.
However, people in upper leadership like Salazar need to be replaced and the bloated agencies like DOJ, DOD, and DOI...need extreme CUTS of all that bloat and waste.
The President needs to get the public lands back in the hands of the American people, that is OUR land and our revenue. For way to long the corporations and the 'good old boys' have run that show, for their own private profits.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kcast985Feb 6, 2012
I don't understand when he said if someone else gets elected that our progress will be in jeopardy. There hasn't been any real progress in the economy. President Obama can't name one thing he would do if he got a 2nd termComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hopefuldavFeb 6, 2012
FTA: "No option is off the table." Does this include the option to let the conflict escalate to war or near war, just in time for the election? If it does, and Obama handles the growing conflict even close to satisfactory, he will win the election. No one wants to change presidents during "war time"...Don't think they haven't thought of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sleestakslayerFeb 6, 2012
No, but neither do the establishment GOP goons. Hillary should run against Obama for the Dem ticket. She has more savvy and is better able to deal with a hostile congress.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
countess666Feb 6, 2012
i dont think there is a way to deal with this republican congress for a democrat. they hate democrats. any democrat. they probably hate Hillary more then most.
bill Clinton was far too successful in dealing with them, and so became far to popular for their liking. they aren't going that allow that to happen again.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sandylandersFeb 6, 2012
Clinton did not "deal with them." He went along with much of the Republican lead legislation. That is what made Clinton successful.
countess666Feb 7, 2012
where he went along with republicans was to get what he wanted. Usually he got what was needed and only had to give a little.
sometimes the outcome wasn't as great though. like the repeal of glass-steagal. Clinton gave that to republicans, but the consequences are responsible for much of the current problems.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 7, 2012
he went along with the republicans after the Dems got their rear ends kicked in 94
countess666Feb 7, 2012
sowing the seeds for our current situation, yes. what's your point?
or did you just want to remind us of a temporary republican victory?
sandylandersFeb 7, 2012
All political victories are temporary. 2010 just saw the house change hands by an overwhelming majority and the crats lost much of their majority in the Senate. More is coming this fall. But, even with that victory to come it is all temporary.