Support for Obama Slips; Unease on 2012 Candidates

[geman]

Now THIS is funny! cris doesn't ever trust polls, remember?

Then he accidently digs up a year old poll and says it's "a little believable" easily worse for Obama than what the poll shows...

He does all this even though Obama has been ahead in the polls. Talk about biased wishful thinking.

What's really funny is he got 7+'s for doing it!

He received the pluses because most of us are afraid what 4 more years of O will do to this Country I so love, I KNOW what it will do to my business can you say bankrupt me. Like I have said before if Romney doesn't work then we move on to the next. for my kids, grand kids and country we must keep trying.

How you've changed Maggie... you use to be nice..

I thought so too!!!!! What happened Maggie are you ok.

[DiveDeepSix]

Maggie is perhaps the most logical and non-biased personality on this forum.

He receives pluses because you're all on the same reading level; captivated over an article from 2011; and not to mention desperately asking to get screwed by Willard and the gasping republicans AGAIN. Reps screwed the country from 2001-2008 and you're ready to lean over that railing AGAIN. Started with 9/11 and ended with one of the worse recessions of the country. Like the battered spouse syndrome, a type of Post Traumatic Stress. It is an accepted mental disorder characterized by a spouse who has been suffering from constant and/or grave domestic brutality. To be recognized as a battered spouse, the person has to have suffered from two cycles of maltreatment. (2001 then 2004) makes sense - with all due respect!

ROFL, You still stuck in the fantasy the Republicans caused the recession bud? You already know that it was caused by the burst of the housing bubble and you already know the Dems were in charge of overseeing it and Bush tried repeatedly to stop them. That one is on your team and you know it. :lol: I don't like battered spouses, but I do like battered onion rings, especially when the batter includes beer!!

[simple]

ROFL, You still stuck in the fantasy the Republicans caused the recession bud? You already know that it was caused by the burst of the housing bubble and you already know the Dems were in charge of overseeing it and Bush tried repeatedly to stop them. That one is on your team and you know it. :lol: I don't like battered spouses, but I do like battered onion rings, especially when the batter includes beer!!

You mean those things should have been regulated? Reps don't want regulations! Leave it all wide open!!! Lose the farm - AGAIN!

[DiveDeepSix]

You mean those things should have been regulated? Reps don't want regulations! Leave it all wide open!!! Lose the farm - AGAIN!

Nope, you know as well as I do, loans were given to people who they knew couldn't afford them in the name of not being racists and being politically correct, and it backfired and blew up in their arrogant faces now they are trying to push their baby off on being Bush's fault. How about they taking some responsibility for their actions? Oh wait that's not going to happen. Now, at least in my case, you bust your butt to hold your credit score up and make your house payment, don't have enough income to refi it, while the govt. chooses to bail out those not making payments, but buying flat screens instead, your crew at work Simple.

[jonjon]

You mean those things should have been regulated? Reps don't want regulations! Leave it all wide open!!! Lose the farm - AGAIN!

I can see where your coming from.

[gp49]

The hilarious part of your statement is...you believe the polls that say Obama is ahead. Now, bookmark this thread and remember I said this...Obama will lose in a landslide, never before seen in American history. You may not believe it now, but remember I said it. Most Americans have awakened from their Obama hypnotic coma and realize what Obama is. Real Americans will not allow a Marxist / Socialist to run our country into the ground any longer.

Add my name to that DinarMillionaire! I believe it! for obama

[simple]

Nope, you know as well as I do, loans were given to people who they knew couldn't afford them in the name of not being racists and being politically correct, and it backfired and blew up in their arrogant faces now they are trying to push their baby off on being Bush's fault. How about they taking some responsibility for their actions? Oh wait that's not going to happen. Now, at least in my case, you bust your butt to hold your credit score up and make your house payment, don't have enough income to refi it, while the govt. chooses to bail out those not making payments, but buying flat screens instead, your crew at work Simple.

Huh, who bought these homes? E v e r y race dude. and by the way, regulations cures that crap.

Edited September 24, 2012 by simple

[DiveDeepSix]

Huh, who bought these homes? E v e r y race dude. and by the way, regulations cures that crap.

Yep, people who knew they couldn't afford the payment, and banks who knew they couldn't afford the payment, but the dems supposedly watch dogging the process said give it to them anyways.

[simple]

Nope, you know as well as I do, loans were given to people who they knew couldn't afford them in the name of not being racists and being politically correct, and it backfired and blew up in their arrogant faces now they are trying to push their baby off on being Bush's fault. How about they taking some responsibility for their actions? Oh wait that's not going to happen. Now, at least in my case, you bust your butt to hold your credit score up and make your house payment, don't have enough income to refi it, while the govt. chooses to bail out those not making payments, but buying flat screens instead, your crew at work Simple.

I don't understand. And where was the pres, the leader of the free world and regulations?

[simple]

Sounds like you're very familiar with this syndrome...

.....When was the last time you beat your wife?

If I replied sarcastically you would think I was wrong.

[geman]

well surely you have simply been drinking the kool aid , and I have been abused the last all most 4 years. But it must be to much for your simple little brain to comprehend. so keep drinking o's bulls**t and good day to ya.

P.S. I live in Michigan I've seen what you left wing nuts can do to a state, Oh and I started my business in 01 and the last 3+ have been my worst.

[thegente]

Many folks seem to be laboring under the delusion that Bush started, and is at fault for the financial meltdown. NOT SO. In 1998 Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed parts of the Glass-Stegal act which took away the barriers between investment banking and lenders. Bush WAS not the man who caused this, it was already in motion when he took office. Since these repeals were authored by our House and Senate, both of which are populated exclusively by Dems and Repubs, I'd say Washington D.C. in general is responsible for screwing America by and large.

Here is a an article on it:

http://crisis.lenderwatch.org/news/398

[cris]

If I replied sarcastically you would think I was wrong.

Lol .....darn, you're catchin on

[yota691]

You mean those things should have been regulated? Reps don't want regulations! Leave it all wide open!!! Lose the farm - AGAIN!

How about go do some research, you have know clue how the Housing Freaks destroyed the USA...And Bush, realize it.... Who tells you all the BS.... MSNBC.. CNN... ABC.... (You can tell us) ...Here a little history... so you can quit spreading the BS... The White House Warned Congress About Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times In 2008, Alone http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

[simple]

How about go do some research, you have know clue how the Housing Freaks destroyed the USA...And Bush, realize it.... Who tells you all the BS.... MSNBC.. CNN... ABC.... (You can tell us) ...Here a little history... so you can quit spreading the BS... The White House Warned Congress About Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times In 2008, Alone http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

I probably get my news from the same places you get yours; We interpret differently. Your condescending statements don't hide the facts of ownership. The administration failed badly! Don't be so naive to think I'm not aware of the talks over the past years. The timeline is relevant evidence that Bush did not respond in time even with warnings beginning in 2001. Finally with foreclosures and financial downturns, action was taken in late 2008 thru 2009. It's not BS that the administration failed badly and regulations allowed broken methodologies to carryon too long! The administration led us into the largest recession in 80 years. Isn't that a fact? We're debating not arguing.

Lehman Brothers used leveraging to borrow large amounts of funding to invest in housing-related assets. Most say it was greed. The impact of the Lehman bankruptcy in 2008 caused a depreciation in commercial and housing restate which resulted in selloffs. The stock market plunged, jobs were lost, more bankruptcies, more foreclosures!

Lol .....darn, you're catchin on

What a weakling.

Edited September 25, 2012 by simple

[Installer36]

Simpleton , you are correct that Bush was at the Helm....But the Senate and House were controlled by whom.......Hint:.......D______ts you wanna by a Vowel..... Sorry for giviung you such a hard question this early...Have a good day....Chris

[simple]

Simpleton , you are correct that Bush was at the Helm....But the Senate and House were controlled by whom.......Hint:.......D______ts you wanna by a Vowel..... Sorry for giviung you such a hard question this early...Have a good day....Chris

Come on Insta****, you tell me the specifics of when and how the control was taken. I can't believe some of you still believe that myth. Still being bamboozled.

For your convenience, the following is cut and pasted from the official Senate website going back to 1995: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm:

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.

Edited September 25, 2012 by TexasGranny
removed personal insult - against rules don'tcha know!

[TexasGranny]

To be totally honest about who was in charge - you need to look at not only the Senate but also the House which was controlled by Democrats from 1955

until 1995 (40 years) - that's a long time and from 1955 to 1981 they also controlled the Senate. Many of our problems we face today originated during this period

of time. The Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 - 1987 but without a Republican House, everything had to have bi-partisan participation. From 1987-1995

the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate. Guess when all of our social engineering programs were passed.

Composition of Congress

[Peace]

Honestly, it really doesn't matter they All work for the banking cabal. They really are the same guys. Hell just take look at the contributions to Os campaign and Romney's. Go back to Bush and Clinton it's all the same ol song and dance. Then as a comparison of a real grass roots look at Ron Pauls backers! I know he's out, but if you want an idea just go look.

They are playing us. Those who own all the major banks world, imf, centrals and fed, own most of the governments. They own Obama and Romney and whoever else they tout in the mainstream. Oh they own the mainstream too.

I know i'm redundant sometimes, but there is a method to my madness...

Forget about being divided: left/right paradigm, race, religion, this is their tool. It's how they are able to bamboozle the masses and that is by division. Socialism is already here it's been here i would argue since the early 1900 s (police, firefighters, roads and bridges, water and infrasctuctures, schools etc. )

The real threat:

TOTALITARIANISM : A police state that uses surveillance and controls every aspect of your lives. This is scarier then anything else. Think of the Russian Gulag. Well I'll keep touting on various posts until we start seeing the real threat.

See ya'll on another thread! I'm like a parasite I need a host

[simple]

To be totally honest about who was in charge - you need to look at not only the Senate but also the House which was controlled by Democrats from 1955

until 1995 (40 years) - that's a long time and from 1955 to 1981 they also controlled the Senate. Many of our problems we face today originated during this period

of time. The Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 - 1987 but without a Republican House, everything had to have bi-partisan participation. From 1987-1995

the Democrats had control of both the House and Senate. Guess when all of our social engineering programs were passed.

Composition of Congress

You'll have to be specific, social programs started long before 1955. Social engineering was advanced for modern times; unemployment, protecting the elderly and children, and poverty. You yourself admit to receiving SS and thousands enjoy unemployment insurance and welfare when appropriate. Do you want to eliminate them all? Where did you get that snapshot Granny?

Honestly, it really doesn't matter they All work for the banking cabal. They really are the same guys. Hell just take look at the contributions to Os campaign and Romney's. Go back to Bush and Clinton it's all the same ol song and dance. Then as a comparison of a real grass roots look at Ron Pauls backers! I know he's out, but if you want an idea just go look.

They are playing us. Those who own all the major banks world, imf, centrals and fed, own most of the governments. They own Obama and Romney and whoever else they tout in the mainstream. Oh they own the mainstream too.

I know i'm redundant sometimes, but there is a method to my madness...

Forget about being divided: left/right paradigm, race, religion, this is their tool. It's how they are able to bamboozle the masses and that is by division. Socialism is already here it's been here i would argue since the early 1900 s (police, firefighters, roads and bridges, water and infrasctuctures, schools etc. )

The real threat:

TOTALITARIANISM : A police state that uses surveillance and controls every aspect of your lives. This is scarier then anything else. Think of the Russian Gulag. Well I'll keep touting on various posts until we start seeing the real threat.

See ya'll on another thread! I'm like a parasite I need a host

Good post Brandy.

[Installer36]

Come on Insta****, you tell me the specifics of when and how the control was taken. I can't believe some of you still believe that myth. Still being bamboozled.

For your convenience, the following is cut and pasted from the official Senate website going back to 1995: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm:

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.

Strange I come up with" Democrats took a 233–202 advantage in the House of Representatives, and achieved a 49–49 tie in the United States Senate. The Senate figure is sometimes quoted in the media as 51-49, which includes two members who ran as independent candidates: Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, who promised to caucus with the Democrats.[8] The final Senate result was decided when Democrat James Webb was declared the winner in Virginia against incumbent George Allen, as reported by the Associated Press.[9] On November 9, 2006, Allen and fellow Republican incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns (Mont.) both conceded defeat, ceding effective control of the Senate to the Democrats". This was in 2006. They controlled all Committees....And did a hell of a job of bringing this country to the brink of disaster. Then you Elected the "Great Pretender" and we have been living happily ever after........

[simple]

Strange I come up with" Democrats took a 233–202 advantage in the House of Representatives, and achieved a 49–49 tie in the United States Senate. The Senate figure is sometimes quoted in the media as 51-49, which includes two members who ran as independent candidates: Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, who promised to caucus with the Democrats.[8] The final Senate result was decided when Democrat James Webb was declared the winner in Virginia against incumbent George Allen, as reported by the Associated Press.[9] On November 9, 2006, Allen and fellow Republican incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns (Mont.) both conceded defeat, ceding effective control of the Senate to the Democrats". This was in 2006. They controlled all Committees....And did a hell of a job of bringing this country to the brink of disaster. Then you Elected the "Great Pretender" and we have been living happily ever after........

Just work on your facts... your original statement was well off base. You're still off if you intend to support the entire Bush administration to no limits. You support him while the real politicians refuse to mention his name or ask for support. Either brilliant or delusional! However, just vote.

[yota691]

[handy]

IMHO Obama sux big time (figuratively and literally from what i've read ). Those are the facts.