Looking for an Honest Answer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama wants the united states to diminish in power. He doesn't care about our economic engine. He will not try to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons . If he is forced to cut the budget... It will come by reducing the military. He will continue to unilaterally reduce our nuclear capability. He will put NASA in charge of muslim outreach. He will reduce our friendship with allies and make no progress with our enemies. He will accelerate our deficits to stifle any dream of an American comeback . Fortunately he is about to get his ass kicked by a better looking and smarter Romney and Ryan.

We'll need a cite for that.

[Anonymous]

One word: sequestration. And that's on Congress, my friends. That is where the major uncertainty lies. If anything it is a partisan issue, not who wins presidency.

[Anonymous]

Didn't read through but the responsibility for this is Congress's, not Obama's. The Democratic Congress squandered their opportunity and the Republicans are worse than useless. I can only hope that if Congress swings back to a Democratic majority they won't squander it again, but that chain of events is a pipe dream at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It will be slow going but we are on the right track. If we can get rid of our obstructionist congress, we will be in very good shape.

First response already had a built in excuse for another four years of slow growth and little progress. I guess it's time to stop blaming Bush and start blaming Congress.

And BTW, who were the obstructionists his first two years in office; you remember, when DC was finally granted statehood.

How the F*ck is this relevant at ALL to your question about the economy, Pee-sat?

It's relevant since the President had two years of a democrat house and senate and they couldn't even get DC statehood passed. The were no republican obstructionists and no one to blame.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It will be slow going but we are on the right track. If we can get rid of our obstructionist congress, we will be in very good shape.

First response already had a built in excuse for another four years of slow growth and little progress. I guess it's time to stop blaming Bush and start blaming Congress.

And BTW, who were the obstructionists his first two years in office; you remember, when DC was finally granted statehood.

How the F*ck is this relevant at ALL to your question about the economy, Pee-sat?

It's relevant since the President had two years of a democrat house and senate and they couldn't even get DC statehood passed. The were no republican obstructionists and no one to blame.

The Democrats never had a filibuster-proof Senate and the Republicans employed the filibuster at a rate far in excess of previous Senates. First, frivolous lawsuits in Minnesota kept Al Franken from taking his seat. Then, Ted Kennedy was ill and eventually died. The attempt to give DC voting rights was prevented by Republicans attaching gun legislation to it. The suggest that there were no Republican obstructionists suggest either that you have no memory or no respect for the facts.

[Anonymous]

As one who voted for Obama and will undoubtedly do it again, I nevertheless resent, as a DC resident, the fact pointed out above, that Obama did not seem to have us anywhere on his priority list for those first few years. He surely is not perfect.

But heck, I realized a few years back that even I am not perfect, so it's not a deal-breaker for me.