Originally Posted by MOCKBA (Post 17054330)

and 8 years before that wasnt a mistake?

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 17054379)

And yes so far the Bush years were better. 4.2% unemployment if I recall. :winkwink:

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER (Post 17054462)

Two terms for Obama or one?

Originally Posted by MOCKBA (Post 17054484)

One if theres someone worthy, Two if its Palin retard.

Originally Posted by 2012 (Post 17054518)

November 2000: 3.6%
January 2009: 8.5%
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...mployment+rate

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17054544)

Yeah, Obama's doing a terrible job...

http://static.businessinsider.com/im...510-update.gif

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER (Post 17054462)

Two terms for Obama or one?

Originally Posted by BIGTYMER (Post 17054573)

Looking better but I'd expect to see an uptick with the amount of money he has put into job creation.

Lets not forget the numbers they provide are sketchy. They say the unemployment rate is 9.7% but the real number is closer to 22%.

Originally Posted by MOCKBA (Post 17054608)

I hear its 59%

Originally Posted by 2012 (Post 17054518)

November 2000: 3.6%
January 2009: 8.5%
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...mployment+rate

Originally Posted by MOCKBA (Post 17054330)

and 8 years before that wasnt a mistake?

Originally Posted by aniloscash (Post 17054971)

are you serious with this post. Someone please explain to me how you would blame obama for the economy and not bush. I guess I need to watch fox more.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17056972)

You're just as at fault if you're blaming the Bush Admin.

It pre-dated both administrations.

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17056983)

That is completely false and uniformed BULLSHIT of the WORST kind. The economy was on it's way in up in the most positive fashion every imaginable until the BUSH ELECTION and the BOMBING of the TOWERS. That's a fact.

What would have happened we can only speculate but there is no data to support anything but a climb if people hadn't voted for religion instead of sexual indescretion. That is a fact!

Originally Posted by 2012 (Post 17056927)

So as you can see from the nifty graph. Things were looking up and unemployment was steadily declining.

Then Bush happened ...

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 17056988)

Yes Bush happened right around Sept 11th 2001 huh? Ridiculous to argue about as this guy is a one term pres. Look for a huge pendulum swing (its already started) in who controls what soon. Going to be a lot of turnover at the polls soon. lol

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 17056988)

Yes Bush happened right around Sept 11th 2001 huh? Ridiculous to argue about as this guy is a one term pres. Look for a huge pendulum swing (its already started) in who controls what soon. Going to be a lot of turnover at the polls soon. lol

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17056985)

If you're looking to be run in a circle on the housing market and how it pre-dated both Obama and Bush, I'd be happy to oblige.

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17057004)

Obama is a two term president - GUARANTEED!

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17057019)

Cut all that bullshit out. You don't really think that's what caused all the problems do you? And if so why didn't the Bush admin tackle it during their EIGHT FUCKING YEARS IN OFFICE! I mean shit he wasn't a one term president.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17057025)

Why didn't Bush fix it? The same reason Clinton extended the mandates and put even more pressure on the lenders during his "EIGHT FUCKING YEARS IN OFFICE!"

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17057041)

Dude, I wish Clinton had SIXTEEN FUCKING YEARS IN OFFICE. Life might be a lot better for us little people, or worse, but I would have liked to have seen the results. I feel the cock tearing the shit out of my asshole the first day BUSH GOT IN OFFICE!

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17057025)

Why didn't Bush fix it? The same reason Clinton extended the mandates and put even more pressure on the lenders during his "EIGHT FUCKING YEARS IN OFFICE!"

Originally Posted by BFT3K (Post 17057058)

If you believe the Bush years were better than the Clinton years, then there is no debating with you - you are already too far gone.

And if you believe the GOP will beat Obama, simply by bashing everything he does, without offering anything worthwhile whatsoever, then best of luck to you on that as well.

Who do you think even has a CHANCE of beating Obama in 2012?

Watching McCain and Palin nowadays, shows anyone with a fucking brain in their head, just how horribly wrong the last election could have gone, had Obama not been elected. He is an intelligent, even tempered leader, and to switch him out with a right-wing lunatic in 2012 is highly unlikely.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17057048)

Clinton is overrated imho.

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17057076)

You mean like Reagan or something? If you guys want to idolize someone it should really be Nixon cause he's the one who got us talking to the Chinese and Russians. Fuck Reagan, he was a fucking actor.

I'm not going back before this because there used to actually be good republicans back when.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17057088)

Who is "You guys"?

Pretty sure you don't know my party affiliation.

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 17057104)

Your first step is to understand the economic boom that Clinton was lucky to have while in office had NOTHING to do with him. You might take a look at the thing you are using to type responses to for a clue. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 17057104)

Your first step is to understand the economic boom that Clinton was lucky to have while in office had NOTHING to do with him. You might take a look at the thing you are using to type responses to for a clue. :2 cents:

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17057105)

Does it really matter? You're against Clinton and Obama. It can be only worse than what I'm thinking. You're probably getting tea bagged or something. What's the difference? There's a limited number of agendas I'm VERY sad to say.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17057123)

Show me where I drew the line on Obama and Clinton?

You know what they say about those who ASSume.

All I'm doing is simply correcting your ignorant remarks.

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17057155)

Fine if it's about me, cool.

If you really think those aren't the best presidents so far (Obama still open to screw ups of course so he would be better off staying the course and doing nothing), you need to disown your affiliations.

I'm talking since like Eisenhower and Kennedy and shit.

Originally Posted by mgtarheels (Post 17057162)

I've no idea what you just tried to say.

Are you saying Reagan and Nixon are the best presidents we've had, or Nixon and Obama?

Originally Posted by smutnut (Post 17057172)

I'm saying Clinton is the best president we've had in our lifetime. I don't care if he went to the track and gambled it all on a good horse or not, which is complete bullshit. And half the shit that happened wouldn't have if the republicans had left him alone and let him go after Osama cause it was during the distractions of the impeachment that he wasn't able to focus on that and he had made attempts to get him.

Those towers went up because of the Republicans way more than it just being on their watch.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 17057111)

i love these threads - you have someone fuck up a country, an economy and a worldwide reputation in 8 years and then blame everything on the one who has to clean the shit up