American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;440760]Dccpa, the numbers are crystal clear in the first BLS link. In the row "Full-time workers", the number is 118489 for July 2014 and 116156 for July 2013. A difference of 2333 (thousands) or 2. 4 M (rounded up). No lies just facts. In the second link, you are again cherry-picking two points (July 2014 vs. January 2014) which show a very slight increase in part-time jobs. But it's easily within the noise observed over the clear multi-year downtrend, which includes other brief periods where the slope was positive before again going negative. And, there is nothing linking this with the ACA, as the employer mandate hasn't even gone into effect.

[/QUOTE]Who is cherry picking again?

Since you are using the most worthless seasonally adjusted numbers let us go with them.

May 118,727.

June 118,204.

July 118,489.

That would be 200 k jobs lost in the last two months. But wait, you claimed we have been gaining 200 k jobs a month.

No need to continuously debate numbers that are fake when there is a trump card to be played.

[URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000[/URL]

Labor force participation rate shows a. 5% net loss yoy. Get back to me with your spin of how all those jobs are being created and yet the labor participation rate is declining.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;440797][URL]http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000[/URL]

Labor force participation rate shows a. 5% net loss yoy. Get back to me with your spin of how all those jobs are being created and yet the labor participation rate is declining.[/QUOTE]Goodness, that is dismal! The last time I looked at the figures was about 3 months ago. I thought the participation rate had turned the corner and was headed upwards. And we wouldn't have poor Esten to beat up on anymore. Guess I was wrong. Obama et al need to get serious about doing things that will improve employment participation and increase middle class incomes instead of obsessing about redistribution.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;440797]Labor force participation rate shows a. 5% net loss yoy. Get back to me with your spin of how all those jobs are being created and yet the labor participation rate is declining.[/QUOTE]You don't understand.

According to Nancy Pelosi this is a good thing because it means that more people will be able to "[I]follow their dreams[/I]", including their dream of never having to work to support themselves, their dream of having others pay for the things they need, and their dream of laying around waiting to vote for liberal politicans.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;440797]Since you are using the most worthless seasonally adjusted numbers let us go with them.

May 118,727.

June 118,204.

July 118,489.

That would be 200 k jobs lost in the last two months. But wait, you claimed we have been gaining 200 k jobs a month.

[/QUOTE]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.

Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: [URL]http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf[/URL]

[QUOTE=Jackson;440808]According to Nancy Pelosi this is a good thing because it means that more people will be able to "[I]follow their dreams[/I]", including their dream of never having to work to support themselves, their dream of having others pay for the things they need, and their dream of laying around waiting to vote for liberal politicans.[/QUOTE]Pelosi was talking about how the ACA lowers the cost of health insurance for low-income Americans. This would indeed potentially allow some of these people to work fewer hours, and thus pursue other ambitions such as going back to school (to get a better job) or some other endeavor. The ACA doesn't support people financially otherwise, it is strictly about lessening the burden to pay for healthcare insurance. Apparently this runs contrary to the beliefs of some conservatives, who would rather increase the burden on low-income people, and if they can't afford it (but make too much to qualify for Medicaid), it's [I]tough shitsky[/I] as some here would say.

Once again, the right wingers pull out their insulting "Americans are lazy" rhetoric to twist the words, views and intentions of liberals (who value hard work as much as anyone). As I have said before, misinformation is a core strategy for right wingers. They often seem unwilling or unable to make thoughtful, convincing arguments about why their views and policies are better. So they resort to misrepresenting others.

[QUOTE=Esten;440809]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.

Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: [URL]http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]

Population growth, United States of America:

2013 Jul 186443
2013 Aug 186554
2013 Sep 186664
2013 Oct 186775
2013 Nov 186996
2013 Dec 187107
2014 Jan 187217
2014 Feb 187328
2014 Mar 187439
2014 Apr 187549
2014 May 187661
2014 Jun 187771
2014 Jul 187883
Numbers in thousands.

Please note the increase in population is considerably more than the increase in jobs.

You are right Esten, retirement is responsible for part of the decline in labor force participation. So too are the policies and incompetency of the Obama administration and its allies in Congress.

[QUOTE=Esten;440809]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.

Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: [URL]http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]That's the best you can do? The baby boomers have just started retiring, they aren't responsible for a 40 year low in the labor force participation rate. People are pursuing higher education because the first degree didn't get them a job. Just like people are pursuing disability because they cannot find a new job. I have hundreds of clients I see each year and that keeps me aware of what is really happening vs. The government statistical fairyland. BTW, you ever going to acknowledge that fracking created a million real jobs in the last few years, in spite of BO?

Since the BLS added the birth / death rate assumption, the statistics have been meaningless.

Looks like they started falsifying the numbers even more starting with. January, 2014! Of course, the timing is just a coincidence.

[URL]http://www.bls.gov/sae/benchmark2014.pdf[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;440810]The ACA doesn't support people financially otherwise, it is strictly about lessening the burden to pay for healthcare insurance.[/QUOTE]It lessens the burden on some people by placing the burden on others, along with the bureaucratic costs necessary to effect the transfer.

How the fuck is that fair?

[QUOTE=Esten;440810]Once again, the right wingers pull out their insulting "Americans are lazy" rhetoric to twist the words, views and intentions of liberals (who value hard work as much as anyone).[/QUOTE]Americans aren't lazy in general, only the able-bodied ones who demand other people's money be given to them in exchange for doing nothing.

In case I wasn't clear anough before, let me say it again: Any able-bodied person who takes money from the government in exchange for doing nothing is a lazy fuck!

[QUOTE=Esten;440810]As I have said before, misinformation is a core strategy for right wingers. They often seem unwilling or unable to make thoughtful, convincing arguments about why their views and policies are better. So they resort to misrepresenting others.[/QUOTE]Jajajajaja! This, from the Master of Dis-information!

Here, let me fix that for you.

"[I]As I have said before, misinformation is a core strategy for [strike]right[/strike] left wingers. They often seem unwilling or unable to make thoughtful, convincing arguments about why their views and policies are better. So they resort to misrepresenting others.[/I]"

[size=3][B]Commissioner of Labor Statistics admits unemployment figures "doctored" by Obama administration[/B][/size]

The current Commissioner of Labor Statistics Erica Groshen admitted in a press conference today that the Bureau of Labor Statistic's official unemployment figures are "[i]completely meaningless[/i]".

When aggressively questioned by MSNBC reporters, the Commissioner went on to say "[i]The government's unemployment rate statistics are so easily manipulated. Want a lower unemployment number, then just claim that everybody whose has exhausted their unemployment benefits are now magically no longer looking for jobs, and thus they may be dropped from the unemployment statistics.[/i]"

Commissioner Groshen continued "[i]Anyone with any brains knows that the only relevant number is the percentage of Americans who actually have jobs, as this number is not subject to bureaucratic or political manipulation like the easily redefined number of Americans who are 'looking for jobs'.[/i]"

"[i]By using the Obama Administration's current system, if everybody stopped looking for jobs tomorrow, we would have an unemployment rate of 0.0, which the administration would call 'full employment'.[/i]"

"[i]The fact is that fewer Americans actually have jobs now than when Obama took office 5 years ago, and that's the only statistic that counts.[/i]"

[URL]http://www.newsday.com/business/columnists/carrie-mason-draffen/executive-suite-erica-groshen-u-s-labor-statistics-chief-1.4694753[/URL]

[URL]http://www.boston.com/jobs/news/2013/09/07/the-hot-seat-bureau-labor-statisticscommissioner-erica-groshen/SgEfKWcQXZp8z01mEaDIsM/story.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/05/22/meet-the-new-bureau-of-labor-statistics-commissioner[/URL]

The Big Picture is that the Financial Crisis in 2007 was a disaster in jobs. Familiar with all that?

We read about the slow recovery. Companies that did not closed shop learned to cope with a leaner look. Outsourcing, temporary workers, robotics were already trending even before that.

Any crisis of that magnitude will result in in a large part of the labor force never quite recovering the tsunami. E. g. 40-65 age group.

We already talk at length that Americans are behind in technical & science abilities & training.

Technological innovations will result in traditional jobs being made obsolete.

And so on. I know the bashing here is kind of fun & stimulating for some people. But the blinders-on talking points are ridiculous.

I have read the three threads that you recommended and I think for someone to come away with the opinion that you have you are looking for anything that is detrimental to what the Obama admin is doing. I failed to find anything in any of these threads that justified your stinging accusation that this admin is cooking the books. Are you so naiev to think in this day of such partison politics that the executive branch could get away with falsifying such an important statistic as employment numbers? I don't mean to sound nasty but I wonder if you spend a lot of time watching fox news.

[QUOTE=HotRod11;440835]I have read the three threads that you recommended and I think for someone to come away with the opinion that you have you are looking for anything that is detrimental to what the Obama admin is doing. I failed to find anything in any of these threads that justified your stinging accusation that this admin is cooking the books. Are you so naiev to think in this day of such partison politics that the executive branch could get away with falsifying such an important statistic as employment numbers? I don't mean to sound nasty but I wonder if you spend a lot of time watching fox news.[/QUOTE]If you believe that the numbers aren't manipulated, you are very naive. The executive branch doesn't need to falsify numbers. By virtue of the changed definitions, the exclusions, the seasonal adjustments, etc. , the numbers are falsified by government employees following the rules.

Anyone who has paid any attention to government economic statistics knows that the numbers are manipulated, massaged, seasonally adjusted and recalculated. The number manipulation goes back to at least the Kennedy administration and every President since has added his own special adjustment. If unemployment numbers don't look good, create several levels and start using one with a lower unemployment number. Inflation too high, remove food and energy from the equation. Inflation still too high because of rising housing prices, switch to using rent. Are you aware that over $1 T of our GDP is the rent a homeowner could be paying himself and the interest income you could be earning on your interest free checking account? I am not joking.

Most small businesses I know don't even send in labor reports. Why would a small business waste its time on a useless government report that doesn't benefit the business? And when they are sent in, the numbers are worthless as compiling accurate numbers would take even more time away from productive work.

Don't watch tv news shows, so I can't speak to whatever you were talking about on Fox News.

If you want to truly learn about how the last several Presidents have falsified the true economic numbers watch Chris Martenson's original crash course series.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7E8A774DA8435EEB[/URL]

[QUOTE=HotRod11;440835]I have read the three threads that you recommended and I think for someone to come away with the opinion that you have you are looking for anything that is detrimental to what the Obama admin is doing. I failed to find anything in any of these threads that justified your stinging accusation that this admin is cooking the books. Are you so naiev to think in this day of such partison politics that the executive branch could get away with falsifying such an important statistic as employment numbers? I don't mean to sound nasty but I wonder if you spend a lot of time watching fox news.[/QUOTE]You are correct, the government uses a standardized approach to gather and report employment and economic statistics, that has been more or less consistent for decades. We covered this topic before. Even if someone thought the methods were skewed to makes things look more favorable (not that it is), it's been that way consistently so you can compare with past years and past presidents apples to apples.

The post by "The Truth" was a complete fabrication, none of those quotes were in any of the three links. Think about it, would someone running the BLS actually say something like "Anyone with any brains knows ". Probably something written here...

This is all part of the right wing denial of the strong jobs data we have been seeing recently. [U]The last 6 months of 200K+ jobs is the strongest jobs growth since 1997. 2.4 Million jobs in the past year[/U]. First some here tried to claim it was all or mostly part-time jobs, but in fact the data shows it's mostly full-time jobs. Then they try to claim the numbers are phony or fabricated, but that's simply not true. The fact that someone would go to the length of creating a false news story and posting it here, reveals the utter, craven desperation of the AP right wingers. They are beyond Fox News, if that is possible. The strong jobs data flies in the face of every lie and distortion they have posted, and they have difficulty dealing with it.

[QUOTE=Esten;440846] [U]The last 6 months of 200K+ jobs is the strongest jobs growth since 1997. 2.4 Million jobs in the past year[/U]. [/QUOTE]Esten, you're confusing the crap out of me. Earlier you said,

[QUOTE=Esten;440809]Dccpa, you're embarassing yourself. Let's put up all the numbers over the past year. There is a clear steady upward trend in full-time jobs. Part-time jobs are about flat, after dipping between summers. As for the LFPR, I suggest you do some digging into the underlying causes, such as changing demographics (baby boomers) and more people pursuing higher education.

Full-time Part-time
2013 Jul 116,156 28,184
2013 Aug 116,301 27,888
2013 Sep 116,883 27,421
2013 Oct 116,306 27,211
2013 Nov 116,951 27,461
2013 Dec 117,278 27,372
2014 Jan 117,656 27,540
2014 Feb 117,819 27,330
2014 Mar 118,003 27,695
2014 Apr 118,415 27,297
2014 May 118,727 27,219
2014 Jun 118,204 28,01
2014 Jul 118,489 28,070
Numbers in thousands
Source: [URL]http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea06.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]


So how are you coming up with 200K+/month job growth over the last 6 months or 2.4 million over the past year?

Interesting observation Tiny, but the 200K+ per month is widely reported. Perhaps the BLS numbers I quoted reflect adjustments or revisions after the fact, I am not entirely sure. But those numbers do show 2.4 Million jobs year over year, consistent with 200K+/month over half the period.

BTW, your population numbers show a one-year change 187883-186443 = 1.4M, which is [u]less[/u] than the 118489-116156 = 2.4M increase in jobs. What population metric is that?

Steady USA Job Growth Stretches Into Sixth Consecutive Month
[URL]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-08-01/u-dot-s-dot-jobs-growth-continues-in-july-jobless-rate-ticks-up-to-6-dot-2-percent[/URL]

July jobs report comes in above 200 K for 6th consecutive month
[URL]http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3708808200001/july-jobs-report-comes-in-above-200k-for-6th-consecutive-month/[/URL]#sp=show-clips.

[size=3][b]Former Press Secretary Jay Carney admits White House "massaged" unemployment numbers before 2012 election.[/b][/size]

In a stunning interview today on the Daily Kos website, Former Press Secretary Jay Carney admits that the Department of Labor was instructed by White House "officials" to "massage" the unemployment numbers before 2012 election, this resulting in the magical drop of the official unemployment figures from 8.3% to 7.8%, putting the number in the coveted 7% zone.

Carney went on to state "[I]In hindsight, I can't believe we weren't challenged on what was an unbelievable drop in the unemployment number, but the news media simply accepted the new number without question. With the help of the media, we would have never gotten away with this. Even now, the media continues to ignore the story. Can you imagine how they'd howl if a Republican President had done the same thing?[/I]"

When questioned further by aggressive Daily Kos interviewers, Carney said "[I]Fortunately, The President did not have any direct involvement in the situation, and in fact the President only learned about the manipulation of the unemployment numbers when it was belatedly reported on the TV news.[/I]"

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/27/did-the-bls-give-obama-a-major-election-2012-gift/

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/did-census-bureau-fake-unemployment-numbers-leading-2012-election

[QUOTE=TheTruth;440858]

In a stunning interview today on the Daily Kos website, Former Press Secretary Jay Carney admits that the Department of Labor was instructed by White House "officials" to "massage" the unemployment numbers before 2012 election, this resulting in the magical drop of the official unemployment figures from 8.3% to 7.8%, putting the number in the coveted 7% zone.

Carney went on to state "[I]In hindsight, I can't believe we weren't challenged on what was an unbelievable drop in the unemployment number, but the news media simply accepted the new number without question. With the help of the media, we would have never gotten away with this. Even now, the media continues to ignore the story. Can you imagine how they'd howl if a Republican President had done the same thing?[/I]"

When questioned further by aggressive Daily Kos interviewers, Carney said "[I]Fortunately, The President did not have any direct involvement in the situation, and in fact the President only learned about the manipulation of the unemployment numbers when it was belatedly reported on the TV news.[/I]"

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/27/did-the-bls-give-obama-a-major-election-2012-gift/

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/did-census-bureau-fake-unemployment-numbers-leading-2012-election[/QUOTE]Looking forward to more postings from an old timer. Your pioneer BA days give you legitimate credibility.

Just watch the "friendly fire". You are exposing and wiping out your own foxholes. DonB, watch out!!

[URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/rush-limbaugh-robin-williams-killed-himself-due-le/[/URL]

Every day, I say to myself, take a break from posting. And yet I can't help myself.

[QUOTE=TheTruth;440858]http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/census-faked-2012-election-jobs-report/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/27/did-the-bls-give-obama-a-major-election-2012-gift/

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/11/19/did-census-bureau-fake-unemployment-numbers-leading-2012-election[/QUOTE]I looked at these 3 links for amusement. While there's no mention of Jay Carney, they do discuss what became another right-wing conspiracy theory around the jobs numbers just before the 2012 election.

The genesis and development of it is very interesting. It started with an article in the New York Post, a right wing trash tabloid that specializes in Obama and Democrat hit-pieces, owned by the same owner as Fox News. They publish an article quoting an anonymous source who says that some data going into the jobs report is fake. We have no idea who this source is, and no explanation how some fake data (if true) doesn't get caught but has a major impact on a jobs report. NYP publishes it under the title "Census 'faked' 2012 election jobs report".

Then a Libertarian writer (Peter Ferrara) at a right wing financial site (Forbes) quotes the NYP article, presenting it as "evidence". Mr. Ferrara, BTW, was at the time selling a book called "Obama and the Crash of 2013". LOL. And Fox News is right there regurgitating the story as fact as well. All based on some anonymous source.

While "The Truth"'s post is creative fiction, it is a real fact that right wing media and politicians cooperate regularly to deceive Americans.

[size=3][b]American Society of News Editors: "[i]Left wing media and politicians cooperate regularly to deceive Americans."[/i][/b][/size]

In a recent speech before the American Society of News Editors, it's president David Boardman candidly discussed his profession's "[I]overt[/I]" left wing bias. "[i]It's time for us to acknowledge that those of us in the media do have a liberal bias, and this bias has been good for America.[/i]"

Boardman further stated "[i]The fact is that this country would never have elected it's first black president without the help of the liberal media, and I say it's time for journalists to be proud of their liberal agenda and to be equally proud of their influence in shaping the positive direction of this country."[/i]

[url]http://gigaom.com/2014/07/16/newspaper-companies-need-to-stop-lying-to-themselves-says-longtime-newspaper-editor/[/url]

[url]http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/259122/essay-hey-publishers-stop-fooling-us-and-yourselves/[/url]

[url]http://ajrarchive.org/article.asp?id=4870[/url]

The guys who this is for know who they are.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29207[/ATTACH]

JW runs Shadowstats which is a site that keeps the economic numbers using the pre bastardized changes that started with the Kennedy administration. The entire interview is well worth listening too, but for the unemployment information start about the 11 minute point.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clrpVNoPHII[/URL]#t=692.

[URL]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-judges-censured-sex-courthouse-20140902-story.html[/URL]

Why worry about foreign threats, when you are self destructing at home. And not laughing about Argentina so much.

[QUOTE=RevBS;441122]And not laughing about Argentina so much.[/QUOTE]Who on this forum is laughing about Argentina?

[QUOTE=Jackson;441128]Who on this forum is laughing about Argentina?[/QUOTE]I apologize, my mistake/. I took the snorts for laughter.

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-dick-cheney-blindly-beats-the-drums-of-war/2014/09/10/0ccda798-3921-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?tid=trending_strip_2[/URL]

More money making schemes from the used car salesman. Albeit a very rich & successful legal con man.

[QUOTE=RevBS;441250][b]War drums beating again![/b]

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-dick-cheney-blindly-beats-the-drums-of-war/2014/09/10/0ccda798-3921-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?tid=trending_strip_2[/URL]
More money making schemes from the used car salesman. Albeit a very rich & successful legal con man.[/QUOTE]Dick Cheney is just another [B]"successful old white guy",[/B] you know, the kind [b]you love to hate![/b]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29225[/ATTACH]

I assume you prefer the double talk of the lost in la la land [strike]community organizer[/strike] great divider.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441280]Dick Cheney is just another [B]"successful old white guy",[/B] you know, the kind [b]you love to hate![/b]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29225[/ATTACH]

I assume you prefer the double talk of the lost in la la land [strike]community organizer[/strike] great divider.[/QUOTE]

And such a heavy burden to carry around. I prefer the word "dislike" better. "Irritated" or "annoyed" might even be more correct.

And you do take the liberty of labeling all the "old white" guys" that I hang around with as being "poor white trash"?

[QUOTE=RevBS;441282]And such a heavy burden to carry around. I prefer the word "dislike" better. "Irritated" or "annoyed" might even be more correct.

And you do take the liberty of labeling all the "old white" guys" that I hang around with as being "poor white trash"?[/QUOTE]You may think of them as "poor white trash" but those are your thoughts and your words, not mine.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441280]Dick Cheney is just another [B]"successful old white guy",[/B] you know, the kind [b]you love to hate![/b][/QUOTE]I did not make them up.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441280]Dick Cheney is just another [B]"successful old white guy",[/B] you know, the kind [b]you love to hate![/b]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29225[/ATTACH]

I assume you prefer the double talk of the lost in la la land [strike]community organizer[/strike] great divider.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RevBS;441287]I did not make them up.[/QUOTE]Those are my words and I stand by them, spin it how ever you want.

[QUOTE=Punter127;441288]Those are my words and I stand by them, spin it how ever you want.[/QUOTE]I get the message, Donald Sterling!

[QUOTE=RevBS;441291]I get the message, Donald Sterling![/QUOTE]Donald Sterling? Absurd!
But not surprising considering the source.

Mid-term elections is only around 6 weeks away. The main focus will be for the battle for the Senate. On it will ride Obama's legacy because given the opportunity, the Republicans will try to impeach Obama and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. The fangs have already been sharpen and the barks will become ferocious tearing bites if the Senate swing Republican. It will be a feeding frenzy unseen since Attila the Hun swept through Europe. A fitting description, no?

While I have not been following the key races that closely, it seems that the AP Glee Club gloating boasts of a few months ago is now somewhat subdued. A lesson learned from 2012 when cockiness turn to incredulous despair. But it is also true that the Democrats will be fighting for their lives this time around.

Having been notified that I often made rash statements, perhaps, I should refrain from making a prediction. Or should I? Very interesting.

Nobody is going to impeach Obama. They are too damn scared. I hear he's really good at killing people.

[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-said-hes-really-good-at-killing-people-2013-11[/URL]

[QUOTE=RevBS;441467][b]It's so quiet, it's eerie![/b][/QUOTE]Some conservatives may be down at the Koch Freedom Jamboree. They are trying to develop a new strategy for the upcoming midterms, now that their ObamaScare and "Obama has no strategy" bullshit has dried up.

[QUOTE=Esten;441483]Some conservatives may be down at the Koch Freedom Jamboree. They are trying to develop a new strategy for the upcoming midterms, now that their ObamaScare and "Obama has no strategy" bullshit has dried up.[/QUOTE]I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama. I haven't met anyone who likes the Republican Senate candidate in my state. Yet he leads over an incumbent Democrat. That should tell you that the public isn't buying what Obama is selling. If Republicans take over the Senate, you are going to be in for a real eye opener. You are going to see the real Barack Obama, the one who believes the US Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored.

After President Obama stated that they didn't have a strategy for the isis problem I think it was interesting that people like me thought this is great, their thinking this out.

If W was the commander in chief his response would of been-- well I hadn't heard that but if its true we will invade, probably next week.

[QUOTE=HotRod11;441503]After President Obama stated that they didn't have a strategy for the isis problem I think it was interesting that people like me thought this is great, their thinking this out.

If W was the commander in chief his response would of been-- well I hadn't heard that but if its true we will invade, probably next week.[/QUOTE]Really? Can you name one place that "W" invaded without the approval of congress?

Now tell us how many times Obama has used military force without the approval of congress?

[B]Nobody wants to be Obama.[/B]

[QUOTE=Dccpa;441486]I think Republicans already have a strategy. It is called we are not Obama. I haven't met anyone who likes the Republican Senate candidate in my state. Yet he leads over an incumbent Democrat. That should tell you that the public isn't buying what Obama is selling. If Republicans take over the Senate, you are going to be in for a real eye opener. You are going to see the real Barack Obama, the one who believes the US Constitution is an inconvenience to be ignored.[/QUOTE]Some Democrats are using that same "I'm not Obama" strategy.

Look what Democrat Alison Grimes in Kentucky is saying.

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Pa16JPUlY[/URL]

If Gimes is to be believed, why would the Democrat party support her?