President Obama coming to Buffalo

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Right, so now, not only are we supposed to be happy with the non-results we have gotten from these people, we are supposed to revel in our second-class citizenship?

 

I sick to death of hearing the phrases "at least (Insert Upstate City) is" and "pretty good for (Insert Upstate City)".

 

If Obama came to your house and punched you in the mouth, I suppose you'd rationalize it by saying at least he didn't kick you in the sack, and that's pretty good for a guy from Buffalo.

 

[Nanker]

President BO - the first affirmative action president.

[PastaJoe]

President BO - the first affirmative action president.

 

I thought it was GWBush; selected by the SCOTUS, and clearly not the most qualified candidate for the job.

[IDBillzFan]

I thought it was GWBush; selected by the SCOTUS, and clearly not the most qualified candidate for the job.

There is going to come a moment in the next six to 12 months where libs like yourself are finally going to realize what a complete and utter incompetent fool Obama is, and that ultimately all the Bush references in the world won't be enough to throw people off the scent of the stench currently occupying the WH.

 

Not today. Not tomorrow. But soon. And long before he tries to get re-elected in 2012. His idea of leadership worked for a corrupt city like Chicago. It doesn't play on the world stage.

 

But hey, we gained some jobs last month, so that's saying something.

[Adam]

No, he is going to beat whoever we put at left tackle and hammer our quarterback. Like everyone else does

[keepthefaith]

There is going to come a moment in the next six to 12 months where libs like yourself are finally going to realize what a complete and utter incompetent fool Obama is, and that ultimately all the Bush references in the world won't be enough to throw people off the scent of the stench currently occupying the WH.

 

Not today. Not tomorrow. But soon. And long before he tries to get re-elected in 2012. His idea of leadership worked for a corrupt city like Chicago. It doesn't play on the world stage.

 

But hey, we gained some jobs last month, so that's saying something.

 

 

Well said.

 

Unless there is a substantial change, he'll be gone after 2012 IMO. He was given a big benefit of a doubt by many voters. His charisma and speaking ability carried him through the campaign and he had a perfect storm in which to run (very unpopular Republican predecessor, weaker speaking opponent and a down turning economy). He'll have to run on his own record in '12 and many that I talk to who suported him see his very thinly veiled plan for economic justice for certain sectors of the economy and that he pioritizes that over fiscal responsibility as we drown in debt.

[PastaJoe]

Well said.

 

Unless there is a substantial change, he'll be gone after 2012 IMO. He was given a big benefit of a doubt by many voters. His charisma and speaking ability carried him through the campaign and he had a perfect storm in which to run (very unpopular Republican predecessor, weaker speaking opponent and a down turning economy). He'll have to run on his own record in '12 and many that I talk to who suported him see his very thinly veiled plan for economic justice for certain sectors of the economy and that he pioritizes that over fiscal responsibility as we drown in debt.

 

You just keep believing that. Most people vote with their pocketbooks, and by 2012 the economy will be sufficiently recovered with job growth and the continued rise in the stock market. And all you can do is hope that we don't recover. How's that feel rooting against the home team?

[Magox]

You just keep believing that. Most people vote with their pocketbooks, and by 2012 the economy will be sufficiently recovered with job growth and the continued rise in the stock market. And all you can do is hope that we don't recover. How's that feel rooting against the home team?

And you just keep believing that the "economy will be sufficiently recovered", by the 2012 elections. It's not about "rooting against the home team", it's about recognizing dumbass fiscal policies, which clearly you don't see.

 

See how that works?

[IDBillzFan]

And you just keep believing that the "economy will be sufficiently recovered", by the 2012 elections. It's not about "rooting against the home team", it's about recognizing dumbass fiscal policies, which clearly you don't see.

 

See how that works?

No, he doesn't. And he never will. Because it is forever more important for libs to first proclaim they know what someone is thinking "And all you can do is hope that we don't recover." and then demonize them for that un-American thinking "How's that feel rooting against the home team?" Compliments of the party that brings you Meatless Mondays.

 

First things first. It does no good to just beat Dems. You have to eliminate the RINOS first. While it's not an easy task, when done right, it's enough to make Bob Bennett cry.

 

To quote one of my favorite rally signs, "I can see November from my house."

[drnykterstein]

There is going to come a moment in the next six to 12 months where libs like yourself are finally going to realize what a complete and utter incompetent fool Obama is, and that ultimately all the Bush references in the world won't be enough to throw people off the scent of the stench currently occupying the WH.

 

Not today. Not tomorrow. But soon. And long before he tries to get re-elected in 2012. His idea of leadership worked for a corrupt city like Chicago. It doesn't play on the world stage.

 

But hey, we gained some jobs last month, so that's saying something.

 

Hey, more Republican fear mongering. What a surprise!!!

 

BE AFRAID OF THE OBAMANATOR!!111 HE WILL EAT YOUR BABIES!>!>!>

 

This is the fictional world Republicans live in.

[IDBillzFan]

Hey, more Republican fear mongering. What a surprise!!!

 

BE AFRAID OF THE OBAMANATOR!!111 HE WILL EAT YOUR BABIES!>!>!>

I don't see where the fear mongering is in my statement.

 

I mean, it's not like I was yelling "We MUST pass this stimulus bill RIGHT NOW to keep unemployment at 8%!!!!!"

 

Or maybe "We MUST pass this health care bill NOW because hundreds of thousands of people die every year because they don't have health care!!!"

 

Now that's some quality fear mongering right there, Skippy.

[keepthefaith]

You just keep believing that. Most people vote with their pocketbooks, and by 2012 the economy will be sufficiently recovered with job growth and the continued rise in the stock market. And all you can do is hope that we don't recover. How's that feel rooting against the home team?

 

Let's say that you're right and that the economy will be in better shape in terms of jobs and the stock market in '12. You would continue to support an agenda that deepens our national debt and/or raises and implements new taxes? You would expect the majority of voters to also support that? I doubt that Obama does an about face and runs on a platform of deep spending cuts which the numbers clearly say is necessary. Obama will be an easy target in '12 and there will be plenty of material to work with. He's making his bed every day.

 

I would never hope we don't recover. I have 3 kids and believe it or not I care about their future.

[keepthefaith]

Hey, more Republican fear mongering. What a surprise!!!

 

BE AFRAID OF THE OBAMANATOR!!111 HE WILL EAT YOUR BABIES!>!>!>

 

This is the fictional world Republicans live in.

 

No, we're not afraid of him eating babies. We are afraid of the debt we're racking up which is far from fiction. Many of us had the same fear when Bush was in office but Obama has taken it to a new level in breathtaking fashion.

[PastaJoe]

No, we're not afraid of him eating babies. We are afraid of the debt we're racking up which is far from fiction. Many of us had the same fear when Bush was in office but Obama has taken it to a new level in breathtaking fashion.

 

Funny how there wasn't an outcry from the right and a Tea Party movement when Bush was doubling the debt and fighting a war off the books, or even when Reagan significantly raised the debt. And much of the debt Obama has accumulated was to prevent a further economic decline, but I suppose you would have preferred a depression. And reducing the debt will require a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes, that's just common sense. We've gone too long with reduced taxes while increasing spending. Just this week the military industrial complex has been told that the waste and excess in the military will need to be cut back. Will the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have the guts to make the tough cuts? Obama can only propose, the Congress has to enact.

[Dante]

Let's say that you're right and that the economy will be in better shape in terms of jobs and the stock market in '12. You would continue to support an agenda that deepens our national debt and/or raises and implements new taxes? You would expect the majority of voters to also support that? I doubt that Obama does an about face and runs on a platform of deep spending cuts which the numbers clearly say is necessary. Obama will be an easy target in '12 and there will be plenty of material to work with. He's making his bed every day.

 

I would never hope we don't recover. I have 3 kids and believe it or not I care about their future.

The only thing that worries me is that people were dumb enough to elect this hack in the first place. Will they be smart enough to realize how bad his fiscal policies are? I'm not so sure. Especially with the media on their collective knees continuously for him. Will it even be reported how bad he is? Not much of a stretch seeing him reelected when blacks are voting for him just because he's black. Liberal white douche bags and suburban soccer moms doing the same.

[IDBillzFan]

Funny how there wasn't an outcry from the right and a Tea Party movement when Bush was doubling the debt and fighting a war off the books

Blah, blah, blah. Just because this point is accurate doesn't mean that people aren't wider awake now and ready to stop the madness. Obama and the progressive left made ONE big, stupid, greedy mistake: they thought everyone would keep sleeping, so they put spending and power grabs on steroids. And they did it in the middle of recession, like complete and utter incompetents.

 

So I ask you, in turn,...were YOU providing the outcry when Bush was doubling debt? WERE YOU? If not, then STFU. If you were, then why in the living !@#$ aren't you doing it now? Because he's making Bush look like a freaking spendthrift.

 

But no. Obama is YOUR guy, so it's okay. Or Bush did it, so it's okay now. Anything but stepping up to the truth.

 

Those of us who didn't step up to the truth during the Bush years and earlier are doing it now, and we're not afraid to blame Bush and everyone else, including ourselves for being asleep. To hell with Bush, to hell with Obama, and to hell with spending. Are you with us, or are you okay now that it's YOUR guy doing the spending.

 

It cuts both ways if you're not too lazy to think about it. But I've read enough of your tripe to know you don't have the nutsack to own up to anything but casting blame on others. Is it any wonder you love Obama so much.

[Passepartout]

Well if you are going, get there early. Because it will be filled up like asap. You know how it can be when the President comes to town.

[drnykterstein]

I don't see where the fear mongering is in my statement.

 

I mean, it's not like I was yelling "We MUST pass this stimulus bill RIGHT NOW to keep unemployment at 8%!!!!!"

 

Or maybe "We MUST pass this health care bill NOW because hundreds of thousands of people die every year because they don't have health care!!!"

 

Now that's some quality fear mongering right there, Skippy.

 

Those two items had historical precedent. You know, things like data and analysis that are used to backup the claims. You can't backup your claim that Obama will eat babies, because he's never done such a thing.

[IDBillzFan]

Those two items had historical precedent. You know, things like data and analysis that are used to backup the claims. You can't backup your claim that Obama will eat babies, because he's never done such a thing.

Gee, for two statements that had "data and analysis," they sure were wrong. There's actually a higher likelihood that Obama will eat babies than there is that the stimulus bill will keep unemployment at 8% because one can still happen and the other, regardless of any data and analysis, didn't even come close.

 

And please show me the data and analysis -- and real stuff, not some link to a DailyKos poll or Bill Nye video --- that supports the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they don't have health insurance.

[keepthefaith]

Funny how there wasn't an outcry from the right and a Tea Party movement when Bush was doubling the debt and fighting a war off the books, or even when Reagan significantly raised the debt. And much of the debt Obama has accumulated was to prevent a further economic decline, but I suppose you would have preferred a depression. And reducing the debt will require a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes, that's just common sense. We've gone too long with reduced taxes while increasing spending. Just this week the military industrial complex has been told that the waste and excess in the military will need to be cut back. Will the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have the guts to make the tough cuts? Obama can only propose, the Congress has to enact.

 

I don't believe his spending has had any positive impact on the economy overall, nor did it prevent a depression. I also believe that we could have 10% unemployment and a stock market above $10K if he and Congress had done nothing at all. Even if I'm wrong, whatever benefit was achieved was done so at great expense. If you do the math on cars and homes sold and jobs saved or created, the cost for each car/home/job is astounding and it's added debt we cannot easily repay. Most of the jobs added have been Government jobs which add cost now and long term.

 

The economies in Europe are teaching us a valuable lesson right now, but much of Washington isn't paying attention. Your party won't do the right things because supportive voters are ignoring the obvious. There may have been a time (Clinton years) when economic conditions were more supportive of a comfy social safety net for the less productive. Now and the near future isn't that time. That's what the numbers say. Obama ran on an agenda and even after some time in the seat he refuses to adjust based on reality. At what point do Democratic voters wake up and tell their party that enough (debt) is enough? Republicans slept at this switch for too long but now recognize the obvious.