PDA

View Full Version : What will be the next Obama Distraction?



genglandoh
06-07-2012, 09:49 AM
The Obama re-election campaign has been trying to distract the voters away from the economy.
They have tried


Romney is rich
The war on women
I killed Bin Laden
Bain Capital
Romney hates dogs
Trayvon Martin


What do you think will be next?

LeeG
06-07-2012, 09:55 AM
http://beerandamovie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mars-attacks-jack-nicolson-dies.jpg

I love this game

wardd
06-07-2012, 09:59 AM
that romney will trash the economy more than bush did, will be next

ljb5
06-07-2012, 10:17 AM
Trayvon Martin

Obama shot Trayvon Martin?

David W Pratt
06-07-2012, 10:23 AM
No, no, no, but he is going to order a drone attack on Zimmerman as soon as he has another bail hearing.

wardd
06-07-2012, 10:24 AM
No, no, no, but he is going to order a drone attack on Zimmerman as soon as he has another bail hearing.

so trayvon was collateral damage of an attack on zimmerman?

wardd
06-07-2012, 10:30 AM
So we just skip right from Bush to Romney. Isn't something missing?

you're right i did leave out republican obstructionism

ljb5
06-07-2012, 10:38 AM
So we just skip right from Bush to Romney. Isn't something missing?

You seem to have left out two consecutive years of job growth.

wardd
06-07-2012, 10:41 AM
You seem to have left out two consecutive years of job growth.

yes he did, how convenient

ljb5
06-07-2012, 11:15 AM
Wardd, please reread the exchange and tell me just where you got the idea I somehow left something out....check your meds.

Bush trashed the economy. Then, we had a weak, but sustained recovery. Next, (if he is elected), Romney will trash the economy using the same policies that Bush used.

Romney has not put forward any proposals that would cut spending, decrease the deficit, increase employment or improve the quality of life for the average American. He doesn't have any ideas.

wardd
06-07-2012, 11:24 AM
I left all that out? wow.....I thought I was asking wardd if he was overlooking obama...goway kid, ya bother me.

see post #9

ljb5
06-07-2012, 11:33 AM
I left all that out? wow.....I thought I was asking wardd if he was overlooking obama...goway kid, ya bother me.

You don't seem to deal well with reality.

The Bush years were not an illusion. We can't pretend they didn't happen just because your poor little brain can't accept the facts.

How can you learn from history if you can't even acknowledge it?

ljb5
06-07-2012, 11:51 AM
Look LJ, go find another ankle to yap around............

Who made you king of the forum?

If you don't like what I have to say, you can just go away and hide your head in sand. Maybe cry into your pillow. I don't care.

In the meantime, your inability to deal with simple facts is not my problem.

bobbys
06-07-2012, 12:04 PM
You seem to have left out two consecutive years of job growth..

So Obama Fixed the "trashing" that Bush did?.

How do libs go from Obama cannot fix this mess Bush left to he fixed it all in one thread?

ljb5
06-07-2012, 12:09 PM
How do libs go from Obama cannot fix this mess Bush left to he fixed it all in one thread?

Your premise is incorrect.

I've always maintained that this mess can be fixed, (and, in fact, is being fixed.) It just takes a little more time and effort than some people are willing to put forth.

In the last two years, we have seen definite signs of improvement. In Obama's first term, we have added more jobs than Bush's first term.... and a heck of a lot more than the millions of jobs lost in Bush's last two years.

That is definitely a step in the right direction.

The only question now is whether you want to continue going in the right direction... or want to go back to 2007 and 2008 when we lost millions and millions of jobs.

bobbys
06-07-2012, 12:11 PM
The Obama re-election campaign has been trying to distract the voters away from the economy.
They have tried


Romney is rich
The war on women
I killed Bin Laden
Bain Capital
Romney hates dogs
Trayvon Martin


What do you think will be next?.

7 war on Catholic church.

8 Wisconsin., Big money stole this from us

9 Ann has a horse and you dont.

10 Supreme court people are bad.

11Donald Trump.

ljb5
06-07-2012, 12:18 PM
11Donald Trump.

Oh, so now's it's Obama's fault that Donald Trump can't shut his big yap?

Did it ever occur to you to ask the question the other way --- "Why is Donald Trump trying to distract us from the real issue?"

wardd
06-07-2012, 12:20 PM
Oh, so now's it's Obama's fault that Donald Trump can't shut his big yap?

Did it ever occur to you to ask the question the other way --- "Why is Donald Trump trying to distract us from the real issue?"

everything is obamas fault

bobbys
06-07-2012, 12:37 PM
So we just skip right from Bush to Romney. Isn't something missing?.

You have to understand Ljs time line.

One can only review Republicans from the 60s to include his "southern Stradivari" and then cherry pick years as needed from then on..

However he can pick out a Democratic time line from Adam and Eve if needed.

Clinton. Good
years

Bush bad years

Obama good years.

Pick out the economies as needed good or bad then fit into your essays.

Just Remember Jimmy Carter is never mentioned and RR only if convenient to compare with Obama..

Every Democrat is left with a mess and did not have enough time to fix it but at the end it WAS fixed and a Republican messed it up again..

911 is Never mentioned ... ever

LeeG
06-07-2012, 12:42 PM
.

7 war on Catholic church.



A WAR!!!!! you have a serious cognitive deficiency when the Republican Party is self-destructing on women's issues to raise that hyperbolic statement.

LeeG
06-07-2012, 12:44 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ixRMNOAoays/S18IPx2yxMI/AAAAAAAAIsQ/sFaQ9yxtdbA/s400/Invaders+from+Mars+004.jpg

wardd
06-07-2012, 12:46 PM
what will be the next romney lie, that he secretly served in viet nam?

ljb5
06-07-2012, 12:53 PM
what will be the next romney lie, that he secretly served in viet nam?

No, he didn't, but he has some very good friends who profitted from it. :D

LeeG
06-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Obama will start Mind Control

http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/images2003/movie_pix_a-i/invaders_mars01.jpg

ljb5
06-07-2012, 12:58 PM
Clinton. Good
years

Bush bad years

You can't serioulsy tell me you think Bush was successful, can you?

His eight years ended with the biggest economic crisis in three generations. There is no way to spin that as anything other than a failure.


Every Democrat is left with a mess and did not have enough time to fix it but at the end it WAS fixed and a Republican messed it up again..

That seems pretty accurate. We were in a recession when Bush I left office. During the Clinton years, we had the largest economic expansion in history.

Then, Bush II and the crisis.


911 is Never mentioned ... ever

I'd be happy to mention it. The worst terrorist attack in US history - and Bush was asleep at the wheel.

You're the one who is avoiding learning from history, not me. Bush was a failure. Let's not do that againt.

You don't like failure, do you?

David W Pratt
06-07-2012, 01:14 PM
Evidently using a double entendre about his wife doing push ups with Elle Degenneres

Phillip Allen
06-07-2012, 01:26 PM
Obama's open mike gaff... "Just let me get through this election and then I can be more flexable"

BA.Barcolounger
06-07-2012, 01:31 PM
Obama's open mike gaff... "Just let me get through this election and then I can be more flexable"

Apparently, a "gaffe" is when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

Mrleft8
06-07-2012, 01:51 PM
The next distraction may be some guy named Graham (Or Greame...) from Ohio asking dumb questions that have little or no relevance, or substance, and the possible answers to which are meaningless....... But maybe not......

bobbys
06-07-2012, 02:16 PM
You can't serioulsy tell me you think Bush was successful, can you?

His eight years ended with the biggest economic crisis in three generations. There is no way to spin that as anything other than a failure.



That seems pretty accurate. We were in a recession when Bush I left office. During the Clinton years, we had the largest economic expansion in history.

Then, Bush II and the crisis.



I'd be happy to mention it. The worst terrorist attack in US history - and Bush was asleep at the wheel.

You're the one who is avoiding learning from history, not me. Bush was a failure. Let's not do that againt.

You don't like failure, do you?..

No and i do not beat my wife nor have ever ..

Heres my conundrum drum.

If I say The economy is bad you go into hypo spin mode warp speed and say its good, Obama has fixed it, He Fixed the Mess.

But If I was say it was good under Bush what happened? libs say Obama cannot fix it he did not know it was so bad, He needs more time, Republicans are Stopping him, There was a Earthquake, Arab spring, Weather, etc More Excuses then carter has pills
If he had 2 years of all 3 branches how long is this blame game going to go on.

Just When does he Own anything?.

This game your playing of having it both ways is ridiculous.

You will accept NO responsibility whatsoever..


Seems to me Obama was way in over his head, Has a Million excuses, Has no plan except to do Political s of personal destruction against his opponents.

He is leading from behind All the time.

LeeG
06-07-2012, 02:20 PM
we are ready for the next distraction!

http://a2.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/26/422e32ea96efafc4bb7255149119a613/l.jpg

ljb5
06-07-2012, 03:01 PM
But If I was say it was good under Bush what happened?

Why in the world would you say the economy was good under Bush? Have you had some sort of brain injury?

It's really not so complicated --- in the last 12 months of the Bush presidency, we lost about 4.5 Million jobs. That's bad.

In the last 20 (or so) months of the Obama presidency, we have gained about 3 Million jobs. That's good -- or at least better.

I can see why you're having a conundrum spinning this. Obviously, the facts don't support your argument.

Are you really having a hard time figuring out why gaining 3 Million jobs is better than losing 5 million?

wardd
06-07-2012, 03:06 PM
..

No and i do not beat my wife nor have ever ..

Heres my conundrum drum.

If I say The economy is bad you go into hypo spin mode warp speed and say its good, Obama has fixed it, He Fixed the Mess.

But If I was say it was good under Bush what happened? libs say Obama cannot fix it he did not know it was so bad, He needs more time, Republicans are Stopping him, There was a Earthquake, Arab spring, Weather, etc More Excuses then carter has pills
If he had 2 years of all 3 branches how long is this blame game going to go on.

Just When does he Own anything?.

This game your playing of having it both ways is ridiculous.

You will accept NO responsibility whatsoever..


Seems to me Obama was way in over his head, Has a Million excuses, Has no plan except to do Political s of personal destruction against his opponents.

He is leading from behind All the time.

he might own it when the republicans stop saying no and pass some of his legeslation

bobbys
06-07-2012, 03:15 PM
Why in the world would you say the economy was good under Bush? Have you had some sort of brain injury?

It's really not so complicated --- in the last 12 months of the Bush presidency, we lost about 4.5 Million jobs. That's bad.

In the last 20 (or so) months of the Obama presidency, we have gained about 3 Million jobs. That's good -- or at least better.

I can see why you're having a conundrum spinning this. Obviously, the facts don't support your argument.

Are you really having a hard time figuring out why gaining 3 Million jobs is better than losing 5 million?.

You missed the word IF as i said before Bush has some blame,
However I see you are as a fundamentalist, in your thinking and i Hope the Democrats stick to this way of thinking.

Tea Party people ran and took the lumps on principle The Democrats have no such counter group in their midst and will hold to the same Tactics that will bring them a loss .

Already excuses are in from Wisconsin, .

You might notice if you took off your partisan glasses Walker HAS improved the economy there ..

You might Notice Republicans did well in the mid terms..

Please continue to believe Obama has brought us milk and honey and unicorns.

Please continue to Blame Bush for everything.

Perhaps my "brain injury" has prevented me from seeing Bush is not running this year.

Tom Montgomery
06-07-2012, 03:17 PM
Sweet baby Jaysus!

We have two more weeks before the first day of summer.... The political conventions have yet to be held.... There are 152 days before the general election....

How many more genglandoh Obama threads will we have to endure?

Evidently John Boehner has the yahoos in greater Cincinnati all stirred up!

ljb5
06-07-2012, 03:53 PM
. You might notice if you took off your partisan glasses Walker HAS improved the economy there ..

How do you know Walker improved the economy and not Obama?

There is a lot of automotive component manufacturing in Wisconsin. You don't suppose that Obama's rescue of the automakers might have had something to do with it?

Walker hasn't even been in office for 18 months. That's barely enough time for any of his policies to have had any efffect.

Meanwhile, the rest of the nation has added about three million jobs in that time. -- obviously, we can't give Walker credit for that.

One could easily argue that Walker was fortuante enought to be sworn in while the whole country was adding jobs. But there's really nothing there to indicate that Walker HAS improved the economy... certainly not more than other parts of the country.


Please continue to Blame Bush for everything.

We lost something like 4.5 million jobs at the culmination of his presidency. It's very, very difficult not to blame him for at least some of that, isn't it?

ccmanuals
06-07-2012, 03:56 PM
Bobbys, how did Walker improve the WI economy?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/wisconsin-recall-fact-checking-the-walker-economy/

ljb5
06-07-2012, 04:00 PM
By the way, just to inject some facts into this discussion: Here is a chart of unemployment in Wisconsin:

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:ST550000&ifdim=country&tstart=1175925600000&tend=1333778400000&hl=en&dl=en&ind=false&q=wisconsin+unemployment

Scott Walker was sworn in on January 3, 2011.

As you can clearly see, unemployment in Wisconsin had been dropping for more than a year before Walker was sworn in.

In fact, in the 12 months before Walker was sworn in, unemployment dropped 1.5 points. In the 12 months after, it has dropped only 1 point.

Any rational person would acknowledge that the improvement in unemployment does not line up with when Walker took office.

One might say it lines up nicely with the automaker's bailout, the stimulus program and widespread improvement all over the country -- even in states where Walker is not governor.

But to say that, one would have to take off their partisan blinders.

bobbys
06-07-2012, 04:06 PM
How do you know Walker improved the economy and not Obama?

There is a lot of automotive component manufacturing in Wisconsin. You don't suppose that Obama's rescue of the automakers might have had something to do with it?

Walker hasn't even been in office for 18 months. That's barely enough time for any of his policies to have had any efffect.

Meanwhile, the rest of the nation has added about three million jobs in that time. -- obviously, we can't give Walker credit for that.

One could easily argue that Walker was fortuante enought to be sworn in while the whole country was adding jobs. But there's really nothing there to indicate that Walker HAS improved the economy... certainly not more than other parts of the country.



We lost something like 4.5 million jobs at the culmination of his presidency. It's very, very difficult not to blame him for at least some of that, isn't it?.

I have said here many many times Bush spent .

The Tea Party was formed because of Overspending.

We had "sure thing" candidates that lost because we ran our Tea Party people on Principle.

You will or have NEVER acknowledged any blame on Obama or Democrats .

At some time you or your party need to accept responsibility.

In the end twisting numbers around is a losing game.

At the end of a Baseball game One looks at the score not Excuses..

The Economy WILL determine the Nov outcome..

Bush had some blame yes but in 3 years Bush is not responsible for Obamas policies.

Bush did not produce the Stimulus, At that point the Bush blame was gone.

ljb5
06-07-2012, 04:52 PM
You will or have NEVER acknowledged any blame on Obama or Democrats .

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to blame Obama for. Two straight years of job growth? 3 million new jobs? The stock market going up 6,000 points?

Um... okay, we'll take responsibility for that.

Oh... you wanted me to blame him for something that happend before he was elected. Um, no. Not gonna happen.


In the end twisting numbers around is a losing game.

See, that's your problem. You think looking at the numbers is "twisting" them.


At the end of a Baseball game One looks at the score not Excuses..

Okay.... let's look at the score. Two years of job growth, 3 million new jobs. Unemployment coming down (slowly but surely).... the stock market up 6,000 points.

Not a bad score. Not great, perhaps... but one heck of a lot better than the guys you vote for.


Bush did not produce the Stimulus, At that point the Bush blame was gone.

The stimulus act stopped the job losses and helped turn the economy around. It's rather a shame that Bush didn't do it. (He was more interested in starting wars and cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy.) If he had done it, I might have liked him. Then again, if he had done it, he wouldn't have been a Republican.

Do I need to remind you that the economy has improved and added jobs over the last two years?

For Christ's sake... just a few minutes ago, you're trying to claim that Walker improved the economy in Wisconsin (even though it was already improving for a year before he was elected) .... and now you refuse to admit that the economy has improved while Obama is in office.

Which is it?

Glen Longino
06-07-2012, 04:56 PM
.

I have said here many many times Bush spent .

The Tea Party was formed because of Overspending.

We had "sure thing" candidates that lost because we ran our Tea Party people on Principle.

You will or have NEVER acknowledged any blame on Obama or Democrats .

At some time you or your party need to accept responsibility.

In the end twisting numbers around is a losing game.

At the end of a Baseball game One looks at the score not Excuses..

The Economy WILL determine the Nov outcome..

Bush had some blame yes but in 3 years Bush is not responsible for Obamas policies.

Bush did not produce the Stimulus, At that point the Bush blame was gone.

Translation:
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanh...sniff...snort...whiii iiiiiine...
sob...I never wanted Obama to be President...sniff...and I do not want him to be President again...snort...
Obama is just like Glenn...Both of them make me whiiiiiiiiiiine...sniff...it's all their fault....waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

ccmanuals
06-07-2012, 06:21 PM
You will never convince me that the tea party wasn't formed because their was a black democrat in the White House. All one has to do is read the tea party signs to figure that one out.

Donn
06-07-2012, 06:23 PM
I think the next "Obama Distraction" will be National Security leaks.

ccmanuals
06-07-2012, 06:32 PM
national security should not be capitalized. :)

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-07-2012, 07:45 PM
I'll tell you this , geng. Your side is up against it trying to find something to smear Obama with. Obama's rise to the top has been so fast he hasn't left a lot of detritis around to tar him with. Good student, good husband, no military time to carp about, no failed businesses, no shoddy business dealings. The Koch brothers are going to shell out a small fortune looking for something and the chances of finding anything seem rather slim. It may be back to Rev. Wright or the birth certificate for your side. Don't give up tho'. Maybe he got a deal on a custom suite or a pair of Italian shoes back in Chicago.

Cuyahoga Chuck
06-07-2012, 07:58 PM
The Obama re-election campaign has been trying to distract the voters away from the economy.
They have tried


Romney is rich
The war on women
I killed Bin Laden
Bain Capital
Romney hates dogs
Trayvon Martin


What do you think will be next?

1 and 3 are true.
Romney has to use his wife to repair the damage he has incurred with women's issues.
Dog lovers are a crazy lot and the dog issue may turn them off. I don't know why. Don't have a dog.
Travon Martin doesn't compute. Your creative juices failed you with that one.
Romney's time (or part time) as gubenatorial candidate and governor will get raked over the coals but good. They are sifting thru' it all as we speak. Particularly what he said about his beloved Mass. health insurance plan. It gives me the giggles just thinking about it.
You move. Please avoid the interogatories.

ljb5
06-07-2012, 08:48 PM
I think the next "Obama Distraction" will be National Security leaks.

Was that also a distraction when Bush leaked national security information...

...or was that Obama's fault too?

wardd
06-07-2012, 08:50 PM
who was that cia agent again that worked on nuke proliferation?

skipper68
06-07-2012, 08:52 PM
I will put $20.00 on a false flag. Make Marshal law. All of the Constitutin is suspended, 6 months.Creepy, but not impossible.

genglandoh
07-02-2012, 08:22 PM
The Obama re-election campaign has been trying to distract the voters away from the economy.
They have tried


Romney is rich
The war on women
I killed Bin Laden
Bain Capital
Romney hates dogs
Trayvon Martin


What do you think will be next?

While I was away Obama has added the following distractions
7. Bypassing Congress with his decision on immigration.
8. Using executive privilege to protect Holder

I think both of these distractions have given the Tea Party even more reason to vote against Obama.

I think the next distraction will be his support to legalize pot.

Keith Wilson
07-02-2012, 08:46 PM
The Tea Party never needed another reason to vote against Obama, and wouldn't vote for him if Jesus himself appeared in the sky over Lubbock Texas and told everybody that Obama's his man.

Calling the things a president does "distractions" is silly. In reality (Remember that? The thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away?) the election is not a referendum on the state of the economy. It is a choice between two alternative sets of policies. If Obama is reelected, the president will do one set of things. if Romney is elected, the president will do quite different things. Which of those two do you think is best? That's the decision we all have to make. The rest is just noise.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-02-2012, 08:55 PM
A black man in the white house, and he's not a servant. It just ain't right.

hanleyclifford
07-02-2012, 08:56 PM
The Tea Party never needed another reason to vote against Obama, and wouldn't vote for him if Jesus himself appeared in the sky over Lubbock Texas and told everybody that Obama's his man.

Calling the things a president does "distractions" is silly. In reality (Remember that? The thing which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away?) the election is not a referendum on the state of the economy. It is a choice between two alternative sets of policies. If Obama is reelected, the president will do one set of things. if Romney is elected, the president will do quite different things. Which of those two do you think is best? That's the decision we all have to make. The rest is just noise. I'm not sure about that, Keith. For many the election will be a referendum on the state of the economy, rightly or wrongly. I would like to believe different outcomes would produce different results but I just don't see it.

Keith Wilson
07-02-2012, 10:04 PM
For many the election will be a referendum on the state of the economy, rightly or wrongly.Many people believe all kinds of curious things, some of them right, some of them wrong, more that we can't tell about. Yet one way or another, the election is in reality a choice between two quite different sets of actions the new president will take.

Glen Longino
07-02-2012, 11:12 PM
The biggest Obama distraction will be winning his second term as POTUS 120 days from now!
I'm LMAO watching my Regressive Troglodytic Texan friends trying to convince one another that Willard is their candidate, despite being Mormon rather than Baptist or Snake Handler and despite being an Elitist Yankee rather than their boy Rick Perry!:D:D
If Integrity was Gunpowder, Texas Republicans could not match the explosion of a popcorn fart!

Keith Wilson
07-02-2012, 11:46 PM
Remember, though, a vote cast with great enthusiasm counts exactly the same as a vote cast while holding one's nose.

John Smith
07-03-2012, 06:03 AM
The Obama re-election campaign has been trying to distract the voters away from the economy.
They have tried


Romney is rich
The war on women
I killed Bin Laden
Bain Capital
Romney hates dogs
Trayvon Martin


What do you think will be next?

Would you prefer Bin Laden be alive and GM be dead?

I used to ask people if we'd not be better off if Bin Laden was dead and Saddam was alive.

Keith Wilson
07-03-2012, 07:22 AM
Only about 1/3 of Americans support AHA, and the other 2/3 are annoyed about it all over again with last week's Supreme Court decision.First, your numbers are bogus. There's a tremendous amount of good data from the Kaiser Family Foudation here. (http://facts.kff.org/results.aspx?view=slides&detail=31)

http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Public_Tilts_Unfavorable_On_ACA_In_May.jpg

Second, a sizable portion, maybe 1/3, of those who don't approve of the law don't think it goes far enough, and many want a real tax-funded healthcare system something like every other civilized country has. The support for repealing it and going back to what we have before (the current Republican plan) is very small.


http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Partisan_Divisions_On_ACA_Continue.jpg

http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Partisans_Disagree_On_Next_Steps_For_Health_Reform _Law3.jpg

However, one important point is that there is fairly overwhelming support for all provisions of the law except the mandate.

http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Majority_Favor_Main_Provisions_Of_ACA_Except_Indiv idual_Mandate.jpg

However, the central thing is that at least half the people answering these surveys know very little about the law. As they find out more about what 's actually in it, I expect opinions will change, and the evidence indicates they'll change in Obama's favor. More publicity is a very good thing.

http://facts.kff.org/upload/jpg/large/Nearly_Half_Say_They_Feel_Confused_About_ACA.jpg