You're hecka right! While Obama is working on his March Madness brackets, it was Paul Ryan who led a well-biceped team of commandos to finally take out Osama bin Laden. Unemployment has slipped under 8%, thanks to Romney's excellent idea to let the American automotive industry go bankrupt, and millions of underinsured people are about to get a fairer, more dignified deal under Obamacare. Again, thanks to Romney! Meanwhile, Obama goes around to retirement homes singing "America the Brave" off-key, making no-longer-secret promises to help only the wealthiest half of our country, and makes ludicrous and non-specific claims to cut taxes by 20%, increase defense spending, and somehow cut $5 trillion from our federal deficit. Unbelievable!

When Obama is part of the Assault Team that takes out a terrorist, I'll give him credit. Sitting in a room in the White House watching a video of others risking their lives to take out Bin Laden is far from my idea of leadership. Big deal, he took a political risk -- so what?

Our Ambassador is murdered due to intelligence or State Department failures, and he boards Air Force One to attend a fundraiser in Las Vegas. Now, that's the kind of leadership I can do without...!!!

Sometimes it's worth taking the time to really get facts before making comments. For example, the outlandish statement that Romney "to let the American automotive industry go bankrupt". In fact, the federal bailout authorized by Obama worked out much like the "Managed Bankruptcy" that Romney suggested. If Romney had been president, the auto industry still would have been saved, but the United Auto Workers and the company's unionized employees likely would have been forced to accept lower wages and benefits, which actually would have brought them more in line with mainstream America.
Additionally its really a joke that one say's that unemployment is under 8%.
Unfortunately, the decline was due to a sharp drop in the labor participation rate (fewer people looking for jobs), which isn't good news. It's worth noting that the unemployment rate is still strikingly higher than the Obama administration thought it would be by now, especially after the economic stimulus enacted back in 2009.
In 2009, advisers to President Obama projected that the unemployment rate would be close to 5 percent at this time.
Finally, One gets tired of Obama's fall back position of "It's Bush's fault". Surely it is irresponsible to blame the Bush administration for all the present problems without noting that the Democrat majority controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008. President Obama and the Democrats should be accepting their political parties share of the blame for their part in the recession.
President Obama and the Democrat super majority had full control of the economy in 2009 and 2010 . The President has yet to fulfill many of his election promises of which unemployment remains the highest priority.

Sometimes it's worth taking the time to really get facts before making comments. For example, the outlandish statement that Romney "to let the American automotive industry go bankrupt". In fact, the federal bailout authorized by Obama worked out much like the "Managed Bankruptcy" that Romney suggested. If Romney had been president, the auto industry still would have been saved, but the United Auto Workers and the company's unionized employees likely would have been forced to accept lower wages and benefits, which actually would have brought them more in line with mainstream America.
Additionally its really a joke that one say's that unemployment is under 8%.
Unfortunately, the decline was due to a sharp drop in the labor participation rate (fewer people looking for jobs), which isn't good news. It's worth noting that the unemployment rate is still strikingly higher than the Obama administration thought it would be by now, especially after the economic stimulus enacted back in 2009.
In 2009, advisers to President Obama projected that the unemployment rate would be close to 5 percent at this time.
Finally, One gets tired of Obama's fall back position of "It's Bush's fault". Surely it is irresponsible to blame the Bush administration for all the present problems without noting that the Democrat majority controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008. President Obama and the Democrats should be accepting their political parties share of the blame for their part in the recession.
President Obama and the Democrat super majority had full control of the economy in 2009 and 2010 . The President has yet to fulfill many of his election promises of which unemployment remains the highest priority.

Dave, you failed to point out the Republicans have controlled the U.S. government for the last 2 year. Very convenient.

Finally, "Finally, One gets tired of Obama's fall back position of "It's Bush's fault". " yeah, right. He has not said anything in the last 18-24 months. Look, let's get it right, your hate for President Obama is stronger than your logic. Our economy is recovering. Slowly but faster than expected. Any faster then you would complain about inflation. So, let's move on.

Posted by Arroyo & Posted by Dave are the same person.

"Obama hasn't blamed Bush in the last 18-24 months"? Maybe you should change your screen name to "Rumpelstiltsken".

"Our economy is recovering faster than expected"? Who was expecting the recovery to be worse than this? What happened to Hope and Change? Now we get a new catch phrase: "Forward", the popular title of Communist publications around the world. Look it up.

"Republicans have controlled the U.S. government for the last 2 year". So what happened the first two? I believe Dems have been in control of Congress since 2006. Nt that the big-spending Republicans did us any favors but at least they weren't destroying the country as quickly. Your turn.

Hey GetaLife,
Sorry to burst your bubble...but your ignorance is showing.
Your comment "the Republicans have controlled the U.S. government for the last 2 years" HUH????

The Republicans currently have a majority in the House of Representatives. Yes. But last time I checked, we have three branches of the Federal Government...and the Dems control ...

1) The Executive Branch
2) The Judicial Branch (with the leftist judges and Atty. General Holder)
3) The Senate (with the Senate Majority Leader...the detestable Harry Reid)

You say the Repubs control the Fed??? What a joke you are.

Anyone But Obama, sad you are so extremist that you think that way. Your hate is so abysmal that you state "What a joke you are. " The joke is you.

getalife, it didn't take long for you to descend to the level of most dem apologists and that's to personally attack the messenger when you have no logical retort.
Most thinking voters do not hate obama, they hate his policies, his attitude, arrogant demeanor, his ineptitude, lack of foreign policy and economic knowledge, etc.
Add to that list the fact that his administration is in the middle of the coverup regarding the attack on our embassy in Libya and you have all the reason you need to vote him out.

So Arroyo, the *President of the United States* should have been ON the assault team that took down Bin Laden? That, to you, is leadership? I think you are very confused and obviously don't lead anything in your own life. Should Obama be cleaning the White House toilets too?

@anonymous

Read Mittens' comments above yours -- I think he says it all.

And, as for cleaning the toilets -- he shouldn't take credit for cleaning them, unless he actually does it.

You failed to mention my comment regarding his delayed concern for the attack of the embassy and death of our ambassador. Was flying out to attend his fundraiser what you would expect from your President?

"My Pet Goat". (September 11, 2001)

Weak, Sam. If that's all you've got, you and getalife should just crawl back under your rock. If you can't tell the difference between a leader not wanting to induce panic versus the man child trying to ignore and cover up his embarrassing lack of support for our embassy employees, you're dillusional. You'd think he'd take Rahms advice and never waste a good crisis, but first he'd have to recognize and acknowledge it.
Amazing that you would sink so low, but then the messiahs followers have no shame.

It took a debate moderator with common sense to correct the bald-faced lie being perpertuated by the Romney team. Did you get a close-up oaf this cheap snake oil salesman asking Obama -- asking him -- whether he was on top of the Libya affair? Obama: Read the transcript you dummy At that moment, I decided I'd be voting for Obama. Romney came across like a little pipsqueak, and our Commander in Chief, with righteous disgust I might add, gave him a proper scolding on how to be a real president.

What, Kenneth, no mention of the administration's claim for weeks after this terrorist attack that it was caused by an internet video? Did the entire country just imagine this deflection and coverup?
And now Hillary is thrown under the bus. Is this the way dems treat their women? Classy.....all this, to divert attention from failed foreign policies and weakness in the face of the international community.

Yes, rather than calling Hilary Clinton an excellent secretary of state, I'd rather have my president talk about women getting home early from work to cook for the rest of the family.

In my brief time responding at PW, it is increasingly apparent to me that mittens, arroyo, liberalism is a disease, Dave, and the rest of the posts that reflect double-digit IQ's are likely all the same poster who has a real anger and hate problem.

Kenneth said : "In my brief time responding at PW, it is increasingly apparent to me that mittens, arroyo, liberalism is a disease, Dave, and the rest of the posts that reflect double-digit IQ's are likely all the same poster who has a real anger and hate problem."

I think that Mittens is just a little stressed out because he was panicking a bit over the Benghazi incident and the President wouldn't read him a bedtime story to soothe him.

Sorry to burst your bubble Kenneth, but although it may be hard for you to understand, there are many, many people that don't agree with the current administration's action and/or lack of action. Perhaps there is anger out there caused by the lack of true leadership in Washington. One does not have to resort to name calling and mudslinging to point out the failures of the current administration. If you really take the time to read any of my postings, hopefully you will find that I try to speak facts rather than making wild unfounded accusations. I welcome an honest dialog but don't enjoy innuendos and personal attacks. Serves no purpose

Only a person with a double-digit IQ could criticize someone for making wild claims while at the same time wildly claiming that the president exhibits a "lack of true leadership". Now there's one we can really wrap our heads around! He's a true leader. No he isn't. Yes he is. No he isn't. I stand by my comments. Idiocy is transparent no matter how many different names you use, "Dave."

Guess trying to have an honest dialog with you is a lost cause. As I had stated, whatever comments I have made I have tried to make sure were backed up by facts. Comments like "double digit IQ" certainly don't add anything to any discussion. Try to deal in facts, not useless rhetoric.

Kenneth, you seem to be the one with an anger and hate issue. Perhaps you should seek some professional help.

By the way, Candy Crowley has admitted that she wasn't quite factual in her "act of terror" comments. Obama said "no acts of terror shall ever shake the resolve of this great nation" he and his administration continued to claim this was a protesst that grew out of control. They made this ridiculous claim for two and a half weeks, even after it became obvious to virtually everyone that this was a planned attack. Why hide it? Because Obama's campaign is running on his "tough" foreign policy in which he bravely killed OBL and "has Al Quaeda on their heels".

Frequency says: "Kenneth, you seem to be the one with an anger and hate issue. Perhaps you should seek some professional help. By the way, Candy Crowley has admitted that she wasn't quite factual in her "act of terror" comments."

Wow, these forums are full of professional, licensed psychiatrists handing out free diagnoses! What a great place! But, Dr. Frequency, I think you made a mistake in your comment about Candy Crowley. Not only does she herself continue to defend her correction of Romney's claim, but so do the vast majority of news sites.

BTW, can I get a free psychiatric diagnosis, too? Never know when it may be time to check myself into the funny farm and I want to make sure I have time to pack all my toys and coloring books.

"Dave," you have presented no credible evidence to support your claim that Obama is not a true leader. I have presented all the evidence I need to support my claim that you are operating with a double-digited IQ: your words, replete with inane assertions and contradictions, are evidence enough. This goes for you, "Dave," and all the rest of the names you post with as well.

Last night during the debate I saw a true leader, our Commander in Chief, treat Romney as the petulant little liar that he is. Romney doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same sentence with Obama. One is a respectable leader; the other is a pathetic, life-long, political hack who has proven he will say anything, no matter how untrue, in order to get into office.

Personally, I am happy the righties are turning themselves inside-out with their defense of Romney's lies about Obama. It continues to shed light on what, for me, was the singlemost significant part of the debate. Imagine, a debate moderator was confronted with a lie so utterly egregious that she felt compelled to call the liar what he is.

Well, "Kenneth", to get down to your level, here are a few reasons why I think Obama is not a true leader. Despite your continued asinine remarks, truth and facts still speak louder...

1. Cut the Deficit in Half: the president vowing shortly after taking office to cut an inherited deficit in half by the end of his first term.
The deficit was $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009 and is projected to dip to $1.2 trillion this fiscal year, according to the White House budget office. Even in 2013, the budget office projects the deficit will be nearly $1 trillion.

2. Fix the Economy: Regardless of when the country’s economic problems started, the president also vowed during his campaign to fix the economy in three years. Fourteen months later, he said missing the deadline would make his presidency a “one-term proposition.”
The U.S. unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for more than three years, despite the president's economic adviser predicting one month into the administration that the president’s roughly $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would keep unemployment below 8 percent and reduce it to about 6 percent by this year.

3. Close Guantanamo Bay: Obama has also so far been unable to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.
Obama's effort in 2009 to suspend military commissions in Cuba and his attempt to transfer some prisoners to an Indiana corrections facility were met with opposition from the military and Congress. And last year the president signed a bill that restricted the transfer of prisoners to the U.S. mainland and essentially allows Guantanamo Bay to remain open indefinitely.

4. Televise Health Care Debate: Obama also said repeatedly in his run for the White House – in TV ads, on the campaign trail and in at least one debate – that the negotiations on his health care reform plan would be televised, if he were elected. However, final health care talks, including the meetings between House and Senate conferees, were held behind closed doors.

5. Increase Transparency: Obama once predicted that his administration would have an “unprecedented” level of transparency.

Lobbyists later told reporters they met with administration officials outside the White House in a possible effort to keep them off visitor’s logs. News agencies and others have complained about the difficulty in getting information through Freedom of Information Act filings. Most recently, the president used executive privilege to keep congressional investigators from getting more Justice Department documents on the agency’s failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking effort.

Deal in facts "Kenneth"!

Dave said: "3. Close Guantanamo Bay: Obama has also so far been unable to shutter the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba."

Point #3 is pretty funny. Yeah, Obama said he was going to close Guantanamo Bay and he didn't. So you're giving his failure to close Guantanamo Bay as a reason to not vote for him? Yeah, that makes sense. Vote instead for Romney, who has pledged not only to keep Guantanamo Bay open, but also to double its capacity.

Kinda bizarre that a lot of conservatives are criticizing Obama for breaking a promise to do something that they strongly disagree with. Weird.

Sam, beginning to think one does some very selective listening/reading. One of Obama's campaign "promises" was to shut down Guantanamo which he did not do. The point being that, again, he did not follow through on his campaign promises. He was elected because of his promises, many of which he has failed to do. Do you find the other points "funny" also. How about commenting on the other facts that I listed regarding why I don't think he deserves my vote?

Partially filled promises have nothing to do with 'true leadership', but of course anyone who isn't a dunce would know that. I can promise to meet you at Starbucks, but I'm assaulted by a gang of thugs who prevent me from meeting you. This unfulfilled promise has nothing to do with one's leadership qualities. (It does tell you a lot about thugs, however.)

Obama made some reasonable, well-intentioned, sincere promises. He did not turn his back on them. Rather, he was accosted by Republican thugs who made undercutting and obstructing Obama a priority over the health of the nation. Despite the thugs who announced their primary task would be to unseat the sitting president, Obama has done very well. Compare his partially fulfilled promises with Romney's lies about Obama, lies about welfare, lies about AFA, lies about death panels, lies, lies, lies. Big difference methinks.

Apparently, "Dave" and all the other names he uses, along with his two digit IQ inability to distinguish between promise and lie, prefers a 'true leader' like Bush, who lied us into Iraq, or Romney, who will lie about anything because, heck, it's simply his nature to do so.

It sure looks like more and more people are waking up from their "hope and change" dream:

Web Link

It is going to be an exciting couple of weeks.

Nice try, GX, or is it "Dave"?, and shows a real streak of dishonesty that runs through your very being. Wouldn't it have been a bit more accurate to present the polls three or four days from now, when they'll be reflecting the recent debauchle of a debate performance by Romney, the lying candidate?

People like you are utterly amazing. Do you/can you appreciate the utter hypocrisy of your categorizations and juvenille accusations/name calling? You are so sure of your position that you warp reality to fit it. Does that ever concern you?

I have no idea who these other people are who you lump me with, but I know it doesn't matter what I write as you will believe what you want to believe.

There was no malicious intent for my posting. Feel free to post the same URL in a couple of days if I happen to not get around to it.

And please try to wake up to reality.

Yes, Romney did not perform as well as he did during the first debate but it was not the "debacle"* that you describe it as:

Web Link

* I hope you don't mind that I corrected your spelling

Once again, you might be better served by not trying to destort reality so much.

This "Kenneth" guy really seems to be on a path of no reality. The name calling and wild assumptions that he has engaged in discredit any statement that he has made. It is interesting that when he is presented with facts regarding Obama, his only reply is to slam Romney with no facts to back up his rants. I'm not really interested in continuing to try to reason with "Kenneth" as it is obvious that rational discussions are impossible with him.

Dave said: "Sam, beginning to think one does some very selective listening/reading. One of Obama's campaign "promises" was to shut down Guantanamo which he did not do. The point being that, again, he did not follow through on his campaign promises. He was elected because of his promises, many of which he has failed to do."

So what if he broke his promise on Guantanamo? You just don't seem to get the simple fact that it's not going to change anyone's vote. If a voter is in favor of shutting down Guantanamo, they may be disappointed by the broken promise but they're not going to switch their vote over to another guy who not only wants to keep Guantanamo open but also double its capacity. The only way Romney could benefit from Obama's broken promise on this issue is if Romney claimed that he wanted to shut down Guantanamo.

And as for conservatives, I would think that they would be delighted that Obama changed his views about Guantanamo. The fact that they would rather continue to complain even though Obama changed his mind on this issue baffles me. If Obama didn't change his mind they would be whining, and if Obama changes his mind they still whine. I guess some people just like to whine.

Sam, any comments on the other points I made? Perhaps you would like to expand on his promise to televise Health Care Debates or even better his promise to increase transparency: Obama once predicted that his administration would have an “unprecedented” level of transparency. The president used executive privilege to keep congressional investigators from getting more Justice Department documents on the agency’s failed Operation Fast and Furious gun-tracking effort. Again, facts, please.

In other words, Dave doesn't have a reasoned response to Kenneth's excellent point about obstructed political promises being different than outright lies. In other words, Kenneth's point about Dave's inadequate intellect seems to be pretty accurate. Way to rise up to the challenge, Dave! Keep 'em coming, Kenneth. This Dave guy is a real hoot!!! I'm LMAO!!! (And if Kenneth is right, we can expect Dave to change his name back to Arroyo or 'anyone but obama' or 'liberalism is a disease' or 'mittens' or any of the other "disguises" he poorly offers up.)

Love Jazz, welcome to the discussion! Perhaps you can clarify for me what obstructed any of Obama's political promises. Democrat majority controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008.
President Obama and the Democrat super majority had full control of the economy in 2009 and 2010
Today the Democrats control the Senate and the oval office.
How is he being obstructed?
And when you talk about lies, perhaps as opposed to "Kenneth"s rants, you could be specific on exactly what lies you/he are referring to. Facts, please.

Dave, you don't have much education, do you? To pass legislation in the Senate, you need 60 votes. Obama never had that. 50+ does not constitute control of the Senate. Obama, and Democrats in Congress, have attempted to create scores of job-creating bills; they have almost without exception been defeated by Republican obstructionist efforts. Still, despite the obstructionism, the Obama administration has created twice as many private sector jobs in his 3-1/2 years than Bush admin did in a full 8 years. (Admittedly, Bush added public sector jobs while Obama has decreased them.) How much of an idiot must one be not to acknowledge that? Please go read a basic Poli Sci Amer Politics textbook to learn how the system works. Do you know what a library looks like? It seems your 'reading universe' is limited to Republican blogs written for the uneducated like yourself.

Interesting that I keep seeing these same three mantras in action over and over again (from top to bottom of certain organizations/parties):

- Denigrate your opponent
- Paint your opponent a demon
- Blame your failures/short comings on others

Must have been a great training program you all went through, because I see this same pattern repeatedly.

Depending upon which metric is used, Democrats had a super majority for roughly six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?