The other choice

[duane1969]

1) There is relevance to the language used. Gained implies that it is more than before which is not true. If you want to claim that it is semantics then that is your choice, but it doesn't make it right.

And it is not a positive change from 2009. It is equal to the numbers of 2009.

2) What cuts did the Republicans make that resulted in public sector losses? The public sector has been consistently losing jobs for 4 consecutive years. The Dems controlled the House, Senate and White House for the first two years of that period and the White House and Senate for the second two year period. Where do you get that Republican cuts caused any of it? I am totally baffled.

3) It was a factor in him getting elected. The Kol-Aid drinkers bought into every lie that he told including that one. Re-watch the video, listen to the cheers as he makes his statements. Pulling out of Iraq specifically and his promise of a new and better foreign policy in general were major factors that people voted for him. He accomplished neither.

4) I made an assumption based on your "backwards thinking on every social issue" comment. Why social issues were you referring to?

5) ???

6) Show me a political party that does not have a #1 goal of unseating the opposition's leader. Republicans openly admitting it is just showing a little spine and honesty. Just because Democrats lack the character to admit their truth doesn't mean it isn't what they do too.

The entire 8 years that George W. was in office Democrats openly and actively went after him. From making fun of the way he talked and implying that he was unintelligent to going after his children, the Democrats pulled no punches. Democrats are the last people who should be trying to position themselves on moral high ground.

[Wickabee]

6- It would be nice if politicians could get to running the country instead of running 4 year long elections.
It would be neat if people held both parties accountable instead of just the one they don't like.

[habsheaven]

1) This is what you typed: Since Feb. 2010 we have recovered 4.2 million private sector jobs... How can that comment not mean that in Jan 2010 there were 4.2 million less jobs? The "gain" implies that things have turned around. It has never been a claim that you are ahead of the point where George Bush left you.

2) I am talking about cuts on a state level. I assume these are part of the public sector jobs being talked about. If they are not, I withdraw the comment. If they are, the comment stands.

3) Nothing more than YOUR opinion. Any foreign policy that differs from the previous administration is positive. No doubt, you were one of the ones criticizing the man for bowing to another head of state. Pompously ridiculous.

4) I was referring to both of those issues and more but why that got YOU to linking the two of them is puzzling to say the least.

5) Grover Norquist - you have no problem that 90% of the Republican reps and senators have signed a pledge to NEVER raise taxes under any circumstances?

6) Great! The "you did it so we can do it too" defense. As weak as that is, it is not even relevant here. The economic climate facing this administration was completely different from the one that faced Bush. If there was ever a time for the petty politics to stop it was 4 years ago. I am not going to list all the legislative data over the past 12 years, suffice to say, Bush didn't face the legislative obstruction Obama has faced. Trying to unseat the incumbent is normal. Doing it at the detriment of the country is not.

[duane1969]

1. Quite simply, liberal media likes to say "Obama policies have caused an increase/gain of 4.2 million jobs in the private sector". What they don't want the uninformed people to know is that it wasn't a gain, it was a recovery of what was lost. If liberal media said "After a loss of 4.2 millions jobs between Jan. 2009 and Feb. 2010 we have now REgained 4.2 million jobs" then people would be more informed and aware that while the recovery is happening it isn't a gain of jobs.

Using the word GAINED implies that we now have more than when Obama took office. That simply is not true. The goal in the misuse of words is an attempt to create the illusion that Obama fulfilled a promise and created jobs. He did not. During his tenture there has been a net loss of 607,000 jobs.

2. Public sector refers to government jobs. As a public sector employee I can atest that funding is almost exclusively from the Federal government. The Federal government provides funding to states and the states then dole it out based on how it was earmarked by the Fed. I have no numbers to back this up but I would guess that no more than 10-15% of public sector jobs are funded exclusively by state government income.

One thing I can tell you is that thanks to being married to a woman who works for the state department of education I am aware that the Fed government is cutting funding a lot to education. Right now Republicans have very little say on spending or spending cuts in the Federal government.

3. Opinion? Yes. But an opinion that is widely held. I see no evidence that we have made any friends abroad in the last 4 years. And yes, I took issue with him bowing to other heads of state. However I will add that I think he did it mostly because he was ignorant and not because he was actually showing them respect or admitting that he was below them.

4. I took what you said and ran with it. Any social issue is not evidence of how someone deals with another social issue.

5. Yeah I have a problem with it. They will not hold to it. Politicians raise taxes.

6. That is the defense of everything Obama. I am not going to bother with going back and finding the hundreds of times that the liberal defense has been that a conservative did it before. What's more, liberals are just as actively trying to tear down Romney as conservatives are trying to tear down Obama.

I see nowhere that there is any detriment to the country in stating the facts. If Republicans point out that Obama spent $5 trillion to create jobs and fix the economy and there are less jobs now than before and the economy is still weak and floundering, then how is that wrong? Since when did Obama become so superior that he is above criticism for his failures? Pointing out Obama's flaws is not detrimental to the country, his flaws are detrimental to the country. If he had fixed the economy, kept unemployment below 8%, gotten gas prices down, improved our international standing, pulled us out of Iraq, closed Guantanamo, reformed the Patriot Act, and passed cap and trade, all things that he promised, then we would have nothing to complain about. He accomplished none of it. If pointing out his failure as president is detrimental to the country then giving him 4 more years to be a failure will be catastrophic to the country.

[Wickabee]

1. Quite simply, liberal media likes to say "Obama policies have caused an increase/gain of 4.2 million jobs in the private sector". What they don't want the uninformed people to know is that it wasn't a gain, it was a recovery of what was lost. If liberal media said "After a loss of 4.2 millions jobs between Jan. 2009 and Feb. 2010 we have now REgained 4.2 million jobs" then people would be more informed and aware that while the recovery is happening it isn't a gain of jobs.

Using the word GAINED implies that we now have more than when Obama took office. That simply is not true. The goal in the misuse of words is an attempt to create the illusion that Obama fulfilled a promise and created jobs. He did not. During his tenture there has been a net loss of 607,000 jobs.

So you're saying he hasn't lost any jobs then?

2. Public sector refers to government jobs. As a public sector employee I can atest that funding is almost exclusively from the Federal government. The Federal government provides funding to states and the states then dole it out based on how it was earmarked by the Fed. I have no numbers to back this up but I would guess that no more than 10-15% of public sector jobs are funded exclusively by state government income.

One thing I can tell you is that thanks to being married to a woman who works for the state department of education I am aware that the Fed government is cutting funding a lot to education. Right now Republicans have very little say on spending or spending cuts in the Federal government.

Didn't Romney say he wants to make cuts to education and policing?

3. Opinion? Yes. But an opinion that is widely held. I see no evidence that we have made any friends abroad in the last 4 years. And yes, I took issue with him bowing to other heads of state. However I will add that I think he did it mostly because he was ignorant and not because he was actually showing them respect or admitting that he was below them.

Wow! What else does Obama think when he's nowhere near you?
For the record, it is a show of respect. Whether he actually respects them, I don't know, but it is a show of respect in their culture.

4. I took what you said and ran with it. Any social issue is not evidence of how someone deals with another social issue.

Where did you run though?

5. Yeah I have a problem with it. They will not hold to it. Politicians raise taxes.

You have a problem with it, but that's not why Habs had to ask twice, is it?

6. That is the defense of everything Obama. I am not going to bother with going back and finding the hundreds of times that the liberal defense has been that a conservative did it before. What's more, liberals are just as actively trying to tear down Romney as conservatives are trying to tear down Obama.

How about no one uses the "YOU DID IT FIRST!" argument. It's useless as conservatives have come up with scripted answers such as "Oh, that's your defense for everything!" when Dems say it and "No, it's completely different" when they do it. Both sides do it to an annoying degree and the arguments it spurns are ridiculous. If everyone would either admit they do it as much as the other guy or at least learn and STOP things would get a lot better. When did running the US become a schoolyard spat between 8 year olds?

I see nowhere that there is any detriment to the country in stating the facts. If Republicans point out that Obama spent $5 trillion to create jobs and fix the economy and there are less jobs now than before and the economy is still weak and floundering, then how is that wrong? Since when did Obama become so superior that he is above criticism for his failures? Pointing out Obama's flaws is not detrimental to the country, his flaws are detrimental to the country. If he had fixed the economy, kept unemployment below 8%, gotten gas prices down, improved our international standing, pulled us out of Iraq, closed Guantanamo, reformed the Patriot Act, and passed cap and trade, all things that he promised, then we would have nothing to complain about. He accomplished none of it. If pointing out his failure as president is detrimental to the country then giving him 4 more years to be a failure will be catastrophic to the country.

That's right. Facts are good, just ask Paul Ryan...

[Kosmo kards]

There is one question that needs to be answered. What will Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan change?

Paul Ryan doesn't want to cut the defense budget, which is where most of the countries money. They don't really want to balance the budget, they will just use government money for what they want.

[joee5]

[Wickabee]

There is one question that needs to be answered. What will Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan change?

Paul Ryan doesn't want to cut the defense budget, which is where most of the countries money. They don't really want to balance the budget, they will just use government money for what they want.

Cut taxes for the rich
Cut entitlements for the poor.
Mission Accomplished!

[duwal]

so people here still think Obama did a good job and will do a good job again?

yup, I absolutely had my doubts when I voted against him in the election but since then he certainly has changed my mind to get my vote this time around (well that and the representatives from my party were all pretty pathetic choices)

[Wickabee]

yup, I absolutely had my doubts when I voted against him in the election but since then he certainly has changed my mind to get my vote this time around (well that and the representatives from my party were all pretty pathetic choices)

It actually seems to me you had a couple guys worth listening to, but who aren't popular.

Seriously, the Republican party looks like a high school society and the Tea Party is the popular kids. All the others don't really like them, but they're the "popular" crowd, so they must be followed. Guys like Huntsman and Ron Paul (who I'm not saying would do a good job but do seem to be somewhat levelheaded) get shunned and made fun of while everyone is listening to the head cheerlea...er, Sarah Palin, and her cohorts.

I tend to disagree with Republican policy, but that doesn't make it bad. I think Romney is totally out of touch with the common man and would probably consider me to be destitute because the house I own is 1/100th of his smallest house, that doesn't mean he's bad. I think Ryan promised issues and facts and gave us abs and lies, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% correct.
With all that in mind though, the Republican party is ridiculous. All of these people are college educated job creators, and they run themselves like a high school dance. It's pretty pathetic.

At the same time, that doesn't mean they can't be fixed (but that doesn't mean I will agree with them when they are fixed, either)