[Hoot Gibson]

When a poll taken by James Carville's firm reveals that most Americans believe that "socialist" describes 0bama well, it is bad news for all Democratic candidates. 0bama has earned the "socialist" label and it is why candidates are increasingly unavailable to appear with him in their home districts.

I see Hillary Clinton's fingerprints on the poll. I don't doubt its accuracy but Carville is either working to undermine 0bama on Hillary's behalf or the Ragin' Cajun is really angry about 0bama's role in the botched Gulf clean-up. Either way, this is good news for Americans who still believe in a free market and a democratic government that requires consent of this country's citizens.

[INDENT]

55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?

The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.

Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”

<SNIP>

When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”

[/INDENT]

[Old School]

Now Hoot....you know Obama is a fair scale capitalist, at least accordiing to some on here.:biggrin:

Billionaire and Democratic supporter Mort Zuckerman said that he detects in the Obama White House “hostility to the very kinds of [business] culture that have made this the great country that it is and was. I think we have to find some way of dealing with that or else we will do great damage to this country with a public policy that could ruin everything.” Even Hollywood liberals such as Barbra Streisand and James Broliin are questioning this adminstration anti business stance.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

Here is the thing though we can cater to this statistic. However, is it really a fair assesment considering the American people are stuck in the 24 hour news cycle where the "stigma" is pushed everyday that he infact is a socialist?

[Hoot Gibson]

Here is the thing though we can cater to this statistic. However, is it really a fair assesment considering the American people are stuck in the 24 hour news cycle where the "stigma" is pushed everyday that he infact is a socialist?

The 24 hour news cycle has been with us for quite a few years but the majority of Americans never believe that Bill Clinton was a socialist or the George W. Bush was a nazi, although a vocal minority believed those labels fit. The "socialist" label is sticking to Obama because his policies are confirming people's worst fears about him.

Fortunately, there is still a stigma attached to socialism in this country. There are very few places in this country where a confirmed socialist can run an honest campaign and get elected. Had Obama run an honest campaign, he could not have won a seat in the Senate and he certainly would not have become president.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

The 24 hour news cycle has been with us for quite a few years but the majority of Americans never believe that Bill Clinton was a socialist or the George W. Bush was a nazi, although a vocal minority believed those labels fit. The "socialist" label is sticking to Obama because his policies are confirming people's worst fears about him.

Fortunately, there is still a stigma attached to socialism in this country. There are very few places in this country where a confirmed socialist can run an honest campaign and get elected. Had Obama run an honest campaign, he could not have won a seat in the Senate and he certainly would not have become president.

It is much worse now Hoot and you know it is, Clinton nor Bush took as much biased political rhetoric when it came to placing stigmas in their first 2 years. From day one Obama was called a socialist and it has not stopped it has actually increased on both sides of the aisle. If we want to take a look at the 24 hour news cycle in Bush's case many in the left wing media made statements that he was "greedy and the war was over oil" to this day many American's still confirm that belief. Now many would have still believed that but the media catered to the view and numbers increased because of the 24 new cycle. Point is to many American's are not free thinkers because of the fast paced life and all their political ideology come from partisan media. Big media and lobbying are ruining the principals of politics in this country. I agree that Obama did not run a true honest campaign. However, we must give regard to one thing he did state he would not be able to fix our problems in 4 years, which has held to prove true. :Thumbs:

[Hoot Gibson]

It is much worse now Hoot and you know it is, Clinton nor Bush took as much biased political rhetoric when it came to placing stigmas in their first 2 years. From day one Obama was called a socialist and it has not stopped it has actually increased on both sides of the aisle. If we want to take a look at the 24 hour news cycle in Bush's case many in the left wing media made statements that he was "greedy and the war was over oil" to this day many American's still confirm that belief. Now many would have still believed that but the media catered to the view and numbers increased because of the 24 new cycle. Point is to many American's are not free thinkers because of the fast paced life and all their political ideology come from partisan media. Big media and lobbying are ruining the principals of politics in this country. I agree that Obama did not run a true honest campaign. However, we must give regard to one thing he did state he would not be able to fix our problems in 4 years, which has held to prove true. :Thumbs:

Obama has enjoyed a very friendly media, unlike Bush faced during his two terms. Yet, even with a media that was instumental in getting him elected - a media that has defended his every blunder, the socialist label has stuck with the majority of Americans. Obama has done very little to support his claim to be a moderate. As for fixing our problems in four years, there is no evidence that he is making any progress keeping that promise.

Historically, recessions have been followed by periods of rapid growth and drops in the unemployment rate. That has not happened under Obama. Wall Street and Main Street have no confidence that things are or will be getting better under Obama's watch. That is why Democratic candidates are avoiding being seen with Obama and why the Republicans expect to retake the House and have a good shot at taking the Senate in November.

Clinton also enjoyed favorable coverage from the media but despite being a liberal, he was a pragmatic politician who was able to appeal to enough Republicans and independents that the majority of Americans never viewed him as anything but a moderate or typical liberal Democrat. When Americans failed to support his attempted takeover of the health care system, he deferred to American public opinion. When faced with the same option, Obama twisted arms and bribed moderate Democrats to force nationalized health care down our throats. Now, he and the Democrats are about to pay for their disregard of the public will.

Obama has earned the socialist tag despite 24/7 news coverage that has attempted to sell his agenda. James Carville has supported and defended Obama, which makes the results - and even the existence of this poll even more remarkable. Obama has lost the support of the overwhelming majority of white Americans and independents. Even Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE, which owns MSNBC and who has been a huge supporter of Obama, recently criticized Obama for being anti-business.

Obama's agenda is the reason people now believe that he is a socialist. The media was able to fend off that allegation for a long time but the truth has finally emerged as it usually does.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

Obama has enjoyed a very friendly media, unlike Bush faced during his two terms. Yet, even with a media that was instumental in getting him elected - a media that has defended his every blunder, the socialist label has stuck with the majority of Americans. Obama has done very little to support his claim to be a moderate. As for fixing our problems in four years, there is no evidence that he is making any progress keeping that promise.

Historically, recessions have been followed by periods of rapid growth and drops in the unemployment rate. That has not happened under Obama. Wall Street and Main Street have no confidence that things are or will be getting better under Obama's watch. That is why Democratic candidates are avoiding being seen with Obama and why the Republicans expect to retake the House and have a good shot at taking the Senate in November.

Clinton also enjoyed favorable coverage from the media but despite being a liberal, he was a pragmatic politician who was able to appeal to enough Republicans and independents that the majority of Americans never viewed him as anything but a moderate or typical liberal Democrat. When Americans failed to support his attempted takeover of the health care system, he deferred to American public opinion. When faced with the same option, Obama twisted arms and bribed moderate Democrats to force nationalized health care down our throats. Now, he and the Democrats are about to pay for their disregard of the public will.

Obama has earned the socialist tag despite 24/7 news coverage that has attempted to sell his agenda. James Carville has supported and defended Obama, which makes the results - and even the existence of this poll even more remarkable. Obama has lost the support of the overwhelming majority of white Americans and independents. Even Jeffery Immelt, CEO of GE, which owns MSNBC and who has been a huge supporter of Obama, recently criticized Obama for being anti-business.

Obama's agenda is the reason people now believe that he is a socialist. The media was able to fend off that allegation for a long time but the truth has finally emerged as it usually does.

Wow you are far to partisan take off your right wing glasses and read my post again Hoot. I am not agreeing with Obama. I agree his agenda he has not lived up to and as it is right now as a Progressive I would not vote for him in the up and coming primaries. However, the right wing media bash him every single day and you are saying he has had an easy road with the media? Are you kidding me? Yes, left wing media glorify him in some ways, no they do not call him a socialist and for good reason they would lose their jobs. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle because we have what we call in the communication field "Big Media".

Big Media delute the message to the general public especiallly during election years. Yes, that did aid in Obama being elected as it did as well with Bush in both terms, as it did for Clinton as well. Since the 80s we have saw a growth in the media and that is a problem. You have four elite groups that run this country now the political, economic (wall st), military and the media. We the people have a very small voice in this country besides activists groups and forums. That is the point im trying to raise but apparently I have to spell it out for you in a paper format that could be 30 pages for you to realize that because you disagree with anything any one says besides old school. I do not agree with alot Obama has done, however, I think every politican never lives up to what they are saying. They are just trying to win votes and once they get into office the back off of what they truly said they were going to do. Now part of that does have to do with what was going on.

One thing I do want to put out to you though is Obama did NOT say it would take 4 years. He actually said he would not be able to fix things in ONE TERM he said it is going to take more than 4 years to fix the recession. I thought that before he even said it, we could be in this recession for 5 more years pending on what we the people are willing to do as well. Its not just based on economic policy we as Americans have a job to do as well.

[Wildcatk23]

Wow you are far to partisan take off your right wing glasses and read my post again Hoot. I am not agreeing with Obama. I agree his agenda he has not lived up to and as it is right now as a Progressive I would not vote for him in the up and coming primaries. However, the right wing media bash him every single day and you are saying he has had an easy road with the media? Are you kidding me? Yes, left wing media glorify him in some ways, no they do not call him a socialist and for good reason they would lose their jobs. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle because we have what we call in the communication field "Big Media".

Big Media delute the message to the general public especiallly during election years. Yes, that did aid in Obama being elected as it did as well with Bush in both terms, as it did for Clinton as well. Since the 80s we have saw a growth in the media and that is a problem. You have four elite groups that run this country now the political, economic (wall st), military and the media. We the people have a very small voice in this country besides activists groups and forums. That is the point im trying to raise but apparently I have to spell it out for you in a paper format that could be 30 pages for you to realize that because you disagree with anything any one says besides old school. I do not agree with alot Obama has done, however, I think every politican never lives up to what they are saying. They are just trying to win votes and once they get into office the back off of what they truly said they were going to do. Now part of that does have to do with what was going on.

One thing I do want to put out to you though is Obama did NOT say it would take 4 years. He actually said he would not be able to fix things in ONE TERM he said it is going to take more than 4 years to fix the recession. I thought that before he even said it, we could be in this recession for 5 more years pending on what we the people are willing to do as well. Its not just based on economic policy we as Americans have a job to do as well.

Bush 8 To ruin it. Give obama 8 to fix it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Wow you are far to partisan take off your right wing glasses and read my post again Hoot. I am not agreeing with Obama. I agree his agenda he has not lived up to and as it is right now as a Progressive I would not vote for him in the up and coming primaries. However, the right wing media bash him every single day and you are saying he has had an easy road with the media? Are you kidding me? Yes, left wing media glorify him in some ways, no they do not call him a socialist and for good reason they would lose their jobs. That is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle because we have what we call in the communication field "Big Media".

Big Media delute the message to the general public especiallly during election years. Yes, that did aid in Obama being elected as it did as well with Bush in both terms, as it did for Clinton as well. Since the 80s we have saw a growth in the media and that is a problem. You have four elite groups that run this country now the political, economic (wall st), military and the media. We the people have a very small voice in this country besides activists groups and forums. That is the point im trying to raise but apparently I have to spell it out for you in a paper format that could be 30 pages for you to realize that because you disagree with anything any one says besides old school. I do not agree with alot Obama has done, however, I think every politican never lives up to what they are saying. They are just trying to win votes and once they get into office the back off of what they truly said they were going to do. Now part of that does have to do with what was going on.

One thing I do want to put out to you though is Obama did NOT say it would take 4 years. He actually said he would not be able to fix things in ONE TERM he said it is going to take more than 4 years to fix the recession. I thought that before he even said it, we could be in this recession for 5 more years pending on what we the people are willing to do as well. Its not just based on economic policy we as Americans have a job to do as well.

Bush 8 To ruin it. Give obama 8 to fix it.

That is one way to look at things but it is the wrong way. Here is another way to look at the situation. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. Let's compare how the economy has fared under Republican and Democratic Congresses recently. First, the unemployment rates:

[Image: http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/miche...oyment.jpg]

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the Dow Jone Industrial average has dropped 2.000 points.

Now, let's look at what has happened to actual and projected budget deficits under Bush and Obama. Democrats have enjoyed complete control over spending during this period and remember that Obama promised that unemployment would remain under 8 percent if Congress passed the Stimulus Act (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008).

[Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uplo...eficit.jpg]

Note that even the lowest projected budget deficit for Obama, which would occur in 2014 assuming that the American electorate is foolish enough to give him a second term, dwarfs the largest budget deficit of the Bush years.

Where is the evidence that things are improving under Obama's watch? Where is the evidence that Obama's policies will not do further damage to the economy no matter how many terms he is allowed to serve?

[Wildcatk23]

That is one way to look at things but it is the wrong way. Here is another way to look at the situation. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. Let's compare how the economy has fared under Republican and Democratic Congresses recently. First, the unemployment rates:

[Image: http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/miche...oyment.jpg]

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the Dow Jone Industrial average has dropped 2.000 points.

Now, let's look at what has happened to actual and projected budget deficits under Bush and Obama. Democrats have enjoyed complete control over spending during this period and remember that Obama promised that unemployment would remain under 8 percent if Congress passed the Stimulus Act (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2008).

[Image: http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uplo...eficit.jpg]

Note that even the lowest projected budget deficit for Obama, which would occur in 2014 assuming that the American electorate is foolish enough to give him a second term, dwarfs the largest budget deficit of the Bush years.

Where is the evidence that things are improving under Obama's watch? Where is the evidence that Obama's policies will not do further damage to the economy no matter how many terms he is allowed to serve?

I never once said that Obama was fixing the Economy, He doing Something. Hes trying, I think!.

I don't compare lives to jobs. No graph will show the pain that bush caused America.

[Aslan]

I never once said that Obama was fixing the Economy, He doing Something. Hes trying, I think!.

I don't compare lives to jobs. No graph will show the pain that bush caused America.

What exactly did Bush do? And good has Obama done? There both about the same to me.

[Hoot Gibson]

I never once said that Obama was fixing the Economy, He doing Something. Hes trying, I think!.

I don't compare lives to jobs. No graph will show the pain that bush caused America.

You are just echoing what Democrats and the mainstream media spent 8 years saying about Bush. Where is your evidence that people experience greater "pain" under Bush? Where is you evidence that Obama and his accomplices in Congress borrowing money in unprecedented amounts is making things better for us or for future generations? Feelings are fine but it seems that emotions are about all that Obama's dwindling number of fans have less on which to base their argument that Obama is even trying to create a job creating business climate in this country,

Jobs are the only thing that will alleviate the pain that millions of people in this country are feeling right now and attacking our private sector is not helping the situation at all.

[Wildcatk23]

You are just echoing what Democrats and the mainstream media spent 8 years saying about Bush. Where is your evidence that people experience greater "pain" under Bush? Where is you evidence that Obama and his accomplices in Congress borrowing money in unprecedented amounts is making things better for us or for future generations? Feelings are fine but it seems that emotions are about all that Obama's dwindling number of fans have less on which to base their argument that Obama is even trying to create a job creating business climate in this country,

Jobs are the only thing that will alleviate the pain that millions of people in this country are feeling right now and attacking our private sector is not helping the situation at all.

Did you really just ignore everything i said? I said there is no Proof, I said i dont know if obama is fixing the economy, I said hes trying, hes doing something. i said no graphs could compare the two.

You want proof Bush has done more damage then bush? Try the 4000 deaths of US soldiers as of 2009 in Iraq. Not mentioning afghanistan deaths. I don't recall being in a recession before bush? But thats not even what i mean. Can you compare deaths with jobs hoot?

[Hoot Gibson]

Did you really just ignore everything i said? I said there is no Proof, I said i dont know if obama is fixing the economy, I said hes trying, hes doing something. i said no graphs could compare the two.

You want proof Bush has done more damage then bush? Try the 4000 deaths of US soldiers as of 2009 in Iraq. Not mentioning afghanistan deaths. I don't recall being in a recession before bush? But thats not even what i mean. Can you compare deaths with jobs hoot?

Yes, graphs can compare the two records. 0Bama will add more to the national debt in approximately two years than Bush added in two terms! As for the wars, Bush was president during the period that the US was fighting to win and hold ground. Obama took office and inherited a mop-up operation in Iraq and he changed the strategy in Afghanistan. Are you aware that nearly half of deaths of US military men and women in Afghanistan have occurred on Obama's watch?

As for your assertion that 0bama is "trying," Americans do not elect presidents to give a good effort - they elect them to get positive results. Exactly what do you believe that 0bama is trying to do through his attacks on private sector businesses? What do you believe he is trying to do by adding thousands of federal jobs at a time when the private sector has shrunk so drastically?

Feelings are fine but the hard evidence of 0bama's results is causing the number of people who feel that 0bama is a socialist whose taking our country in the wrong direction is growing every day.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

So, Hoot I replied to your statements and you quoted me and made an argument that was completley out of context to what I was saying. Not the first time in this thread that you have done that. Understand my beef is not with a partisan group, my problem is with the media deluting the message to the general public people just like you and I. However, the trouble is we have educated ourselves beyond that social norm of catering to the biased media (well for you to an extent). I will agree with you on this the spending has exceeded expectations. However, FDR went on a spending spree as well and guess what the depression ended. FDR also made mistakes with the new deal and was relieved by his second new deal.

"Our policy is succeeding. The figures prove it Secure in the knowledge that steadily decreasing deficits will turn in time into steadily increasing surpluses, and that it is the deficit of today which is making possible the surplus of tomorrow, let us pursue the course we have mapped." FDR 1936.

[Matman]

Did you really just ignore everything i said? I said there is no Proof, I said i dont know if obama is fixing the economy, I said hes trying, hes doing something. i said no graphs could compare the two.

You want proof Bush has done more damage then bush? Try the 4000 deaths of US soldiers as of 2009 in Iraq. Not mentioning afghanistan deaths. I don't recall being in a recession before bush? But thats not even what i mean. Can you compare deaths with jobs hoot?

I would blame the preventable deaths on Rumsfeild rather than Bush. However I don't think you can really use that arguement. If you did you would have to blame the increased violence and increases in death on Obama. Which i don't believe either.

[Hoot Gibson]

So, Hoot I replied to your statements and you quoted me and made an argument that was completley out of context to what I was saying. Not the first time in this thread that you have done that. Understand my beef is not with a partisan group, my problem is with the media deluting the message to the general public people just like you and I. However, the trouble is we have educated ourselves beyond that social norm of catering to the biased media (well for you to an extent). I will agree with you on this the spending has exceeded expectations. However, FDR went on a spending spree as well and guess what the depression ended. FDR also made mistakes with the new deal and was relieved by his second new deal.

"Our policy is succeeding. The figures prove it Secure in the knowledge that steadily decreasing deficits will turn in time into steadily increasing surpluses, and that it is the deficit of today which is making possible the surplus of tomorrow, let us pursue the course we have mapped." FDR 1936.

The end of the Great Depression as Hitler began his conquest of most of Europe and the US ramped up industrial production to meet the demands of our allies and to prepare our own nation for war. The Great Depression did not end in 1936, so your FDR quote reminds me of Obama's constant claims that we "have turned the corner" and are "headed in the right direction." A majority of Americans disagree with Obama's assessment and even Democrats are beginning to question his attacks on our own industrial base.

Why is it that whenever liberal policies fail and the American people catch on, Democrats try to explain the failure away by claiming that their message is not getting out. No president has had more help "getting his message out" than 0bama and no president has spent more time whining and blaming his predecessor than him. To accuse the media of diluting Obama's message is absurd.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would blame the preventable deaths on Rumsfeild rather than Bush. However I don't think you can really use that arguement. If you did you would have to blame the increased violence and increases in death on Obama. Which i don't believe either.

:Thumbs: I support both war efforts under Obama, just as I did under Bush. If war casualties were the sole measure of a presidency or of his leadership during war, both Lincoln and FDR would be missing from everybody's list of best American presidents and Jimmy Carter would be perched near the top.

[Old School]

Did you really just ignore everything i said? I said there is no Proof, I said i dont know if obama is fixing the economy, I said hes trying, hes doing something. i said no graphs could compare the two.

You want proof Bush has done more damage then bush? Try the 4000 deaths of US soldiers as of 2009 in Iraq. Not mentioning afghanistan deaths. I don't recall being in a recession before bush? But thats not even what i mean. Can you compare deaths with jobs hoot?

U.S. troops have been in Afganistan since 2001, where over 1170 have died to date. Seven years under Bush and 18 months under Obama during that time 46% of those casualities have been under Obama's watch. If Bush is responsible for the deaths in Iraq, then shouldn't Obama be responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan from 2009 to present.

Yes, we were in a recession during 2000-2001.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

The end of the Great Depression as Hitler began his conquest of most of Europe and the US ramped up industrial production to meet the demands of our allies and to prepare our own nation for war. The Great Depression did not end in 1936, so your FDR quote reminds me of Obama's constant claims that we "have turned the corner" and are "headed in the right direction." A majority of Americans disagree with Obama's assessment and even Democrats are beginning to question his attacks on our own industrial base.

Why is it that whenever liberal policies fail and the American people catch on, Democrats try to explain the failure away by claiming that their message is not getting out. No president has had more help "getting his message out" than 0bama and no president has spent more time whining and blaming his predecessor than him. To accuse the media of diluting Obama's message is absurd.

Just a history lesson for you Hoot, you are correct the recession did not end in 1936. The Quote above was during his second campaign in which he was reelected and was during his admin implementing the Second New Deal. Thus, the quote above does pertain because his policies and the becoming of an industralized nation pulled us out of the recession. Aparently you are all for big media because that is the only way there are people like you in this world. A misconstrude mind will lead you to an unhomley future. Just saying.

Also I have not one said Obama's message has been diluted. The fact of the matter is we never get correct information from the media. In example ACORN (Right wing media's coverage of) was partially accurate and partially innacurate. However, the mission of the company was sullied due to the false information presented. Can you not open your eyes for one second Hoot, are you that entrenched in Fox News and Glenn Beck to realize that our news cycle misrepresents America. You continue to act like I am pro Obama which, I am not. However, history does repeat its self and this current matter is a representation of that. As I said I am not confident that Obama will pull us out of the recession. But I do know that based on the policies that FDR put into place (much like Obama's) and the transformation of economic policy i.e (FDR to and industralized nation), (present day to an service sector nation). The foundation is there now our Administration must find the common relief for those policies and act upon then just as the late 30s early 40s. Its war time economics at its worse.

[Hoot Gibson]

Just a history lesson for you Hoot, you are correct the recession did not end in 1936. The Quote above was during his second campaign in which he was reelected and was during his admin implementing the Second New Deal. Thus, the quote above does pertain because his policies and the becoming of an industralized nation pulled us out of the recession. Aparently you are all for big media because that is the only way there are people like you in this world. A misconstrude mind will lead you to an unhomley future. Just saying.

Also I have not one said Obama's message has been diluted. The fact of the matter is we never get correct information from the media. In example ACORN (Right wing media's coverage of) was partially accurate and partially innacurate. However, the mission of the company was sullied due to the false information presented. Can you not open your eyes for one second Hoot, are you that entrenched in Fox News and Glenn Beck to realize that our news cycle misrepresents America. You continue to act like I am pro Obama which, I am not. However, history does repeat its self and this current matter is a representation of that. As I said I am not confident that Obama will pull us out of the recession. But I do know that based on the policies that FDR put into place (much like Obama's) and the transformation of economic policy i.e (FDR to and industralized nation), (present day to an service sector nation). The foundation is there now our Administration must find the common relief for those policies and act upon then just as the late 30s early 40s. Its war time economics at its worse.

Just a history lesson for you - FDR did not do anything to bring this country out of the Great Depression (not "recession"). The US recovery lagged most other developed countries and I have no idea where you got the notion that FDR had anything to do with turning this country into an industrial powerhouse. That is what we were before the Great Depression and that was what we were after. Men like Ford, Firestone, Rockefeller, Edison, Tesla, and many others working in the private sector ushered in the industrial boom in this country. Government had nothing to do with it except it interfered much less in the pre-FDR days than it does under the industrial no-nothing 0bama.

BTW, I do not fault FDR for trying to spend his way out of the Great Depression because it was an unprecedented event. Modern day liberals should have learned from his mistakes. To FDR's credit, at least he put people to work building the country's infrastructure. Nancy Pelosi recently argued that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. Tax cuts stimulate the private economy. Welfare kills jobs.

Please take another look at spending under 0bama - the graph that shows )bama adding as much to the national debt in two years as Bush and the Democrats did in 8 full years. Have you seen this point made on any of the TV channels or newspapers that you read? Let that graph sink in and then tell me that you really believe that 0bama has not received a fair shake from the media.

As for ACORN, it was not a "company." It was supposedly a non-partisan, tax-exempt organization. In reality, it was a corrupt, highly partisan organization that should not have received the first dime of taxpayer funding. The national media, including the conservative media was not tough enough in its reporting on ACORN and it was too late to save millions of wasted dollars. Now, the same scammers that worked for ACORN have formed new non-profit organizations and are setting themselves up to loot more money from hard working taxpayers.

One final point. I am not a big Glenn Beck fan. Because I work for a living, I rarely watch or listen to him. I like Fox News Channel but I decided that I could live without cable here in DC, so I probably watch FNC less than you do. Please do not let that stop you from making more unfounded assumptions about where I get information about current events and national politics.

[15thRegionSlamaBamma]

Just a history lesson for you - FDR did not do anything to bring this country out of the Great Depression (not "recession"). The US recovery lagged most other developed countries and I have no idea where you got the notion that FDR had anything to do with turning this country into an industrial powerhouse. That is what we were before the Great Depression and that was what we were after. Men like Ford, Firestone, Rockefeller, Edison, Tesla, and many others working in the private sector ushered in the industrial boom in this country. Government had nothing to do with it except it interfered much less in the pre-FDR days than it does under the industrial no-nothing 0bama.

BTW, I do not fault FDR for trying to spend his way out of the Great Depression because it was an unprecedented event. Modern day liberals should have learned from his mistakes. To FDR's credit, at least he put people to work building the country's infrastructure. Nancy Pelosi recently argued that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. Tax cuts stimulate the private economy. Welfare kills jobs.

Please take another look at spending under 0bama - the graph that shows )bama adding as much to the national debt in two years as Bush and the Democrats did in 8 full years. Have you seen this point made on any of the TV channels or newspapers that you read? Let that graph sink in and then tell me that you really believe that 0bama has not received a fair shake from the media.

As for ACORN, it was not a "company." It was supposedly a non-partisan, tax-exempt organization. In reality, it was a corrupt, highly partisan organization that should not have received the first dime of taxpayer funding. The national media, including the conservative media was not tough enough in its reporting on ACORN and it was too late to save millions of wasted dollars. Now, the same scammers that worked for ACORN have formed new non-profit organizations and are setting themselves up to loot more money from hard working taxpayers.

One final point. I am not a big Glenn Beck fan. Because I work for a living, I rarely watch or listen to him. I like Fox News Channel but I decided that I could live without cable here in DC, so I probably watch FNC less than you do. Please do not let that stop you from making more unfounded assumptions about where I get information about current events and national politics.

To take a excerpt from one of your previous posts "thats one way to look at things but its not the right way" hh: I am done with this discussion because its not going to go anywhere you are obviously to intertwined with your own beliefs to respect anyone elses. On the event of politics its very much opinon based, many will argue FDR did alot for this country in which I believe you are on the other side of the aisle. However, you wish to look at it I can at least respect that but NOT when your to much of a "convie" to respect someone of opposing views. Have a nice "DISCUSSION" remember Hoot Gibson for PRESIDENT the man with ALL the ANSWERS or rather convoluted ideas (which is what lost it for the Repubs any how). On an ending note Hoot please go read "Seeds of Change" by John Atlas it takes a look at ACORN from beginning to end and the effects on misinformation. It is a non-partisan book that takes a look at both sides. Then we can discuss that in PM if you wish to read it.

[Wildcatk23]

U.S. troops have been in Afganistan since 2001, where over 1170 have died to date. Seven years under Bush and 18 months under Obama during that time 46% of those casualities have been under Obama's watch. If Bush is responsible for the deaths in Iraq, then shouldn't Obama be responsible for the deaths in Afghanistan from 2009 to present.

Yes, we were in a recession during 2000-2001.

Could be because were actually fighting in Afghanistan now instead of Iraq?

[Wildcatk23]

Yes, graphs can compare the two records. 0Bama will add more to the national debt in approximately two years than Bush added in two terms! As for the wars, Bush was president during the period that the US was fighting to win and hold ground. Obama took office and inherited a mop-up operation in Iraq and he changed the strategy in Afghanistan. Are you aware that nearly half of deaths of US military men and women in Afghanistan have occurred on Obama's watch?

As for your assertion that 0bama is "trying," Americans do not elect presidents to give a good effort - they elect them to get positive results. Exactly what do you believe that 0bama is trying to do through his attacks on private sector businesses? What do you believe he is trying to do by adding thousands of federal jobs at a time when the private sector has shrunk so drastically?

Feelings are fine but the hard evidence of 0bama's results is causing the number of people who feel that 0bama is a socialist whose taking our country in the wrong direction is growing every day.

In afghanistan, which is the only place we should be in the first place.

[Hoot Gibson]

To take a excerpt from one of your previous posts "thats one way to look at it and its not the right way" hh:

Liberals are long on opinions and feelings and short on facts to support them. The fact is the majority of Americans now see 0bama as a socialist and the first step in recovery is to acknowledge that there is a problem. The problem is 0bama and his fellow socialists in Congress. Until liberals recognize that, recovery will have to wait.

[Hoot Gibson]

In afghanistan, which is the only place we should be in the first place.

I disagree with you on Iraq but I have commended 0bama for not bailing out in Afghanistan and I defended him for firing McChrystal. I was thinking of 0bama's domestic agenda, which is the basis of the majority of Americans believing him to be a socialist but I should have been more clear in my challenge.

[Hoot Gibson]

Could be because were actually fighting in Afghanistan now instead of Iraq?

You are the one who believes that war casualties trump the destruction of our economy. American troops are dying at a much faster rate in Afghanistan than they did during Bush's two terms - and the soldiers with whom I work with every day would be shocked to learn that they were not fighting in Afghanistan during the Bush years.

[Beetle01]

If a President really wanted to help the economy they only need end all free trade, and make it impossible to import items for cheaper than what they can be made here for.

Until that happens I will not believe any politician who says they are fighting to better the economy.

[Wildcatk23]

You are the one who believes that war casualties trump the destruction of our economy. American troops are dying at a much faster rate in Afghanistan than they did during Bush's two terms - and the soldiers with whom I work with every day would be shocked to learn that they were not fighting in Afghanistan during the Bush years.

i dont believe the war casualties have anything to do with the economy. I never said they did, I said it caused american families pain.



http://www.icasualties.org/

I am not for sure if the website is a reliable source. But if it is, Then the casualties in Iraq have really gone done huh?

[Hoot Gibson]

i dont believe the war casualties have anything to do with the economy. I never said they did, I said it caused american families pain.

Bts, Hoot and Old School, Lets see the Casualties In Iraq And Afghanistan since the war was started.

This is the kind of thing at which liberals excel - changing the subject. What do war casualties have to do with Obama's socialist agenda? Nothing. The thread is not about Bush and it is not about the wars. The thread is about the American people finally figuring out that Obama is a socialist.