[vector]

Start your own thread if you don't want to discuss the topic of this one, sidekick. I have no problem acknowledging a matter of public record again. Although millions of jobs were created in the first 7 years of Bush's presidency, by the end of his second term there was a net loss of jobs. However, that's been discussed in thread after thread and you are wearing out the question. Bush has not been president for more than 4 years. You need to accept that fact and start holding the current president accountable for the poor job that he is doing.

so if I understand you your boy bush2 created negative jobs and you are crying over Obama's positive jobs creation

[Hoot Gibson]

so if I understand you your boy bush2 created negative jobs and you are crying over Obama's positive jobs creation

I don't have a "boy," vector. Is that what you call Obama, your "boy?" He might take offense at your use of that term. Obama is our president at this time. Complaining about Bush will do you no more good than me complaining about Woodrow Wilson. Bush is part of today's history lessons. It is time for you to move on and focus on Politics and Current Events, which not coincidentally, is the title of this forum.

The two-headed monster of Obamacare and the proposed amnesty bill is a threat to this nation's economic future and those are mistakes that are within Obama's power to correct. Bush is irrelevant to the discussion at this point, although I can understand why you and your mentor are so eager to discuss history instead of current events.

[TheRealVille]

Start your own thread if you don't want to discuss the topic of this one, sidekick. I have no problem acknowledging a matter of public record again. Although millions of jobs were created in the first 7 years of Bush's presidency, by the end of his second term there was a net loss of jobs. However, that's been discussed in thread after thread and you are wearing out the question. Bush has not been president for more than 4 years. You need to accept that fact and start holding the current president accountable for the poor job that he is doing.

TBH, there is no rule about changing the topic, and the OP doesn't get any control over the direction of the thread.

[TheRealVille]

And the rate was also 4.9% during Bush's last year. No matter how you twist the English language to cover your mistakes, the fact stands that the economy has been and continues to be dismally slow under Obama. Carter did a better job.

It is better than when Obama took office. That's what we have to go by.

[Hoot Gibson]

It is better than when Obama took office. That's what we have to go by.

It's worse than it was two months ago and the jobs gained in June were the result of gaining more temporary jobs than the number of fulltime jobs that were lost. Coming out of a deep recession, the table was set for Obama to have a strong recovery. His socialist policies are what have weakened the recovery to a crawl.

[Hoot Gibson]

TBH, there is no rule about changing the topic, and the OP doesn't get any control over the direction of the thread.

That is correct, RV, and you take advantage of that fact in nearly every thread that is critical of Obama. However, nobody is under any obligation to treat obvious efforts to derail the discussion of the OP with respect either. You and vector think that you are accomplishing something by trying to change the subject, but in truth, everybody else sees it as an admission that the OPs are spot on.

[TheRealVille]

It's worse than it was two months ago and the jobs gained in June were the result of gaining more temporary jobs than the number of fulltime jobs that were lost. Coming out of a deep recession, the table was set for Obama to have a strong recovery. His socialist policies are what have weakened the recovery to a crawl.

Is it worse than it was when Obama took office? It's really a pretty simple question. That's just the unemployment rate, we won't ask you again to verify that all the other things I named that are better. nicker:

[TheRealThing]

I'll help you. It was 7.8% on his last day in office.

Hard to believe you'd actually bally-hoo about the unemployment rate record since Obama took office. Nine months into it the rate had soared to 10%. It stayed at 9% or higher for 29 months, only to fall miraculously below 8% for the very first time in his presidency two months before the election.

With all the other shenanigans afoot in the other agencies, how hard is it to believe the numbers aren't cooked? It was only after the formula used to calculate the average was changed in Sept. 2012, that it dipped below 8% in the first place. All that doesn't matter though, it isn't about truth.

[Hoot Gibson]

Is it worse than it was when Obama took office? It's really a pretty simple question. That's just the unemployment rate, we won't ask you again to verify that all the other things I named that are better. nicker:

Is it better than it was at the depth of the recession in 2009? Of course it is. Would it have been better now, no matter who had been elected? Yes, of course it would be. You see, RV, it makes no sense to deny obvious truths and tell lies. Honest men do not try to deny the obvious. This country has emerged from every recession that it has ever suffered but no recovery has ever been so weak under any previous president.

However, the question is whether Obama is doing a good job with the economy, and when you consider that the unemployment rate has not dipped below 7.5 percent, the labor participation rate has dropped to record lows, real wages have declined, businesses are converting fulltime jobs to part time jobs thanks to Obamacare, and the number of people collecting food stamps has shattered all records, the answer is also obvious. Of course, Obama is not doing a good job. His delay of Obamacare's employer mandate screams failure of his signature legislation. An honest man would admit the obvious truth. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

Is it better than it was at the depth of the recession in 2009? Of course it is. Would it have been better now, no matter who had been elected? Yes, of course it would be. You see, RV, it makes no sense to deny obvious truths and tell lies. Honest men do not try to deny the obvious. This country has emerged from every recession that it has ever suffered but no recovery has ever been so weak under any previous president.

However, the question is whether Obama is doing a good job with the economy, and when you consider that the unemployment rate has not dipped below 7.5 percent, the labor participation rate has dropped to record lows, real wages have declined, businesses are converting fulltime jobs to part time jobs thanks to Obamacare, and the number of people collecting food stamps has shattered all records, the answer is also obvious. Of course, Obama is not doing a good job. His delay of Obamacare's employer mandate screams failure of his signature legislation. An honest man would admit the obvious truth. nicker:

Hard to recover good when the House blocks every move he does.


[Image: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-p...3123_n.jpg]

[nky]

Hard to recover good when the House blocks every move he does.

:lame:
wait a minute did Reagan have a Republican Congress? Did Bush his last two years in office?

[Hoot Gibson]

:lame:
wait a minute did Reagan have a Republican Congress? Did Bush his last two years in office?

Bill Clinton managed to work with the Republican House of Representatives to get things done, even as they were preparing to impeach him, if I am not mistaken.

[TheRealVille]

:lame:
wait a minute did Reagan have a Republican Congress? Did Bush his last two years in office?

Does that negate the fact that the House blocks every move Obama does? BTW, didn't Bush2 put us in this hole?

[Hoot Gibson]

Does that negate the fact that the House blocks every move Obama does? BTW, didn't Bush2 put us in this hole?

What it shows is that maybe if Obama spent less time on the golf course and more time cultivating relationships in Congress, he would not need his minions making such ridiculous excuses for his failure to get anything constructive done.

[TheRealVille]

What it shows is that maybe if Obama spent less time on the golf course and more time cultivating relationships in Congress, he would not need his minions making such ridiculous excuses for his failure to get anything constructive done.

But, their main goal was to "get him out of office". Would you cultivate relationships with people that hate you?

[Hoot Gibson]

Does that negate the fact that the House blocks every move Obama does? BTW, didn't Bush2 put us in this hole?

Bush had nothing to do with Obamacare. Zilch. That is Obama's single legislative accomplishment of any consequence and it has already been proven to be a drag on the economy. Presidents have never gotten everything the want passed through Congress. They have to work to find common ground with Congress. Obama does not play well with others and Bush had nothing to do with that character flaw.

[Hoot Gibson]

But, their main goal was to "get him out of office". Would you cultivate relationships with people that hate you?

Do you think that getting Bill Clinton out of office was not high on Newt Gingrich's list of priorities? Or limiting Reagan to one term was not a priority for Tip O'Neill? People in Congress can multi-task and so can a good president. Senators and Congressmen need to accomplish a few things to show their constituents that they deserve another term. Most presidents work hard to find areas where they get as much of their agendas as possible passed, which requires some compromise so that lawmakers also get something out of the deal. Obama has been an abysmal failure in that area. John Boehner is not a very good Speaker of the House.

You are giving Boehner way too much credit for blocking Obama's agenda. Obama has blocked his own agenda. The fact that the Senate has refused to even bring most of Obama's budgets to the floor for a vote shows how wrong you are to place all the blame for Obama's failures on the Republicans in the House. We are seeing the consequences of Obama's decision to refuse to compromise on a healthcare bill and push his legislation through Congress using parlimentary tricks and all Democratic votes. It probably cost Democrats control of the House and now there is no reason for Republicans to bail out the failing Obamacare program because they have no skin in the game.

[vector]

I don't have a "boy," vector. Is that what you call Obama, your "boy?" He might take offense at your use of that term. Obama is our president at this time. Complaining about Bush will do you no more good than me complaining about Woodrow Wilson. Bush is part of today's history lessons. It is time for you to move on and focus on Politics and Current Events, which not coincidentally, is the title of this forum.

The two-headed monster of Obamacare and the proposed amnesty bill is a threat to this nation's economic future and those are mistakes that are within Obama's power to correct. Bush is irrelevant to the discussion at this point, although I can understand why you and your mentor are so eager to discuss history instead of current events.

why not just answer the ?

[vector]

:lame:
wait a minute did Reagan have a Republican Congress? Did Bush his last two years in office?

Reagan has brought you gay marriage

[Hoot Gibson]

why not just answer the ?

I answered your question but you are apparently not literate enough to understand my response. I don't know why I waste my time on you, vector. I have several kitchen chairs that would make as worthy debate opponents as you do. :biglmao:

[TheRealThing]

I answered your question but you are apparently not literate enough to understand my response. I don't know why I waste my time on you, vector. I have several kitchen chairs that would make as worthy debate opponents as you do. :biglmao:

Kind of like Einstine lecturing at a muppet convention. nicker:

[SKINNYPIG]

But, their main goal was to "get him out of office". Would you cultivate relationships with people that hate you?

A President should "cultivate relationships" with all Americans. Those that you claim would not work with Obama have constituents, constituents that opposed many of this admins policies.

Him wanting to stay in office meant more to him than cultivating ANYTHING with ANYONE that opposed his agenda. He constantly campaigned to his ilk while being condescending to the rest. And, he won again...good for him but, for those of us (including our representatives in Washington) that prefer a different approach, holding hands and dancing in the streets won't come easy.