Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2012, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,807 posts, read 5,701,090 times
Reputation: 5669

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
The problem with "honest Abe" is that he never had to deal with a post-Bush economy. He never had the collosal misfortune of following Bush, who was the worst president in history. He never had to deal with the most pathetic congressional Republican in history. He didn't have the hindsight that we have now to know that trickle down doesn't work. He knows nothing about today's progressive society. Had no clue that a black his superior would effectively run this country. He didn't know how pathetic Romney is.

I hope you get better.
Personally I think Lincoln would put both Romney and Obama into the same PATHETIC category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2012, 06:59 AM
 
4,684 posts, read 4,590,897 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
The problem with "honest Abe"
The problem with Honest Abe is that he was dead half a century before these supposed trueisms were ever written.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 08:50 AM
 
41,109 posts, read 25,855,394 times
Reputation: 13868
The problem for Obama is Bush left office 4 years ago. Who is he blaming now for the Obama economy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,959 posts, read 47,869,766 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
I'm still trying to figure out how "You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you have" pertains to Romney? Has anyone looked at Romneys or Ryans big spending budget proposals?
Well, he has been asked, but has failed to explain how he would pay for his five trillion dollar handout.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,959 posts, read 47,869,766 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
Personally I think Lincoln would put both Romney and Obama into the same PATHETIC category.
Lincoln did not say the words in the OP, but I agree he would put them in the same category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 09:09 AM
 
876 posts, read 711,889 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
The problem with "honest Abe" is that he never had to deal with a post-Bush economy. He never had the collosal misfortune of following Bush, who was the worst president in history. He never had to deal with the most pathetic congressional Republican in history. He didn't have the hindsight that we have now to know that trickle down doesn't work. He knows nothing about today's progressive society. Had no clue that a black his superior would effectively run this country. He didn't know how pathetic Romney is.

I hope you get better.
So, poor wittle obama has it harder than Lincoln? Do you really believe this? obama can't even handle an attack on our embassy in another country and you think he could handle a civil war?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 09:24 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,924,500 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
The problem for Obama is Bush left office 4 years ago. Who is he blaming now for the Obama economy?
Things have worked for better under Obama economy, at least since his policies started to show effect. As a result, we have seen private sector add 4.7 million jobs in 32 months (straight). Giving about a year for Bush economic policies to take effect, private sector had added only 1.4 million jobs. But, let us also compare private sector job growth in last four years (fiscal) under Bush, and first three under Obama (the fourth will run thru September 2013, so not counting it):

2006 +2.04 million
2007 +0.99 million
2008 -1.66 million
2009 -6.53 million
2010 +0.38 million
2011 +2.02 million
2012 +1.86 million

Under last four years of Bush economy, change in private sector jobs: -5.2 million
Under first three years of Obama economy, change in private sector jobs: +4.3 million

You can yearn for the former (people like you deserve it), I would take the latter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 10:18 AM
 
Location: west mich
5,739 posts, read 6,968,225 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
The problem for Obama is Bush left office 4 years ago. Who is he blaming now for the Obama economy?
Do you realize how that talking point is mindlessly repeated over and over without a second thought? Yet you persist.
* We are in a 30-year republican trickle-down economy.
* Congressional repubs have sabotaged all attempts to fix it over the last 4 years.

Last edited by detwahDJ; 10-30-2012 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Chicago
937 posts, read 932,045 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
The problem for Obama is Bush left office 4 years ago. Who is he blaming now for the Obama economy?
...Bush left the largest budget deficit, an unchecked financial bubble in the market and 2 wars funded through debt...
I think Obama and the rest of the world can blame Bush for a very, very long time...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,813 posts, read 24,478,765 times
Reputation: 8674
Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
No doubt history has been very kind to Lincoln... He was balancing on a thread for several years and had the Union lost, he would easily be considered the worst President ever.. funny how things can change..

For the record, I think Lincoln was on the right side of history but he definitely abused his power to make ends meet.. and history has basically ignored his transgressions because he kept the union whole.
Its like nuclear war, you may win, but at what cost?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top