jmog;1295805 wrote:Only partisans and the facts...you forgot that the facts say Reagan came into a worse situation.

But hey, don't let the facts interfere with those "non-partisan" media folks.

jmog;1295810 wrote:U3, GDP, energy costs, etc all say other wise.

BoatShoes;1295811 wrote:I'm going to say it again. The facts DO NOT indicate Reagan's situation was worse...you need to grasp this. No one thinks otherwise. There is difference between a financial crisis and a fed caused recession.

jmog;1295815 wrote:Numbers say you are wrong but you are right because of the letter next to the President's name. I understand completely.

jmog;1295763 wrote:Wasn't the stimulus supposed to be a jobs act? That's the bill of goods the American people were sold anyway.

jmog;1295809 wrote:You list 2 Senators, last I checked there were a lot more than 2 democratic Senators in the Senate at the time.

A lot of those were not up for election this time around yet they ALL said the Obama budget wasn't good enough to vote for.

Lol. Of course a careful parsing of the facts doesn't make a difference.

HitsRus;1295918 wrote:Let's parse those facts.

1)Chris Stevens and 3 others died in what was a terrorist attack.
2)Video is/was available almost immediately during and after.
3) Requests for security were made by Stevens and others weeks before the attack.
4)Requests were ignored.
5) 5 days after the attacks Susan Rice is telling us the attacks were a spontaneous reaction from a an anti muslim video.


Okay, your turn...Statements out of the mouth of unnamed state department sources or Jay Carney don't count.

The only thing that I could 'parse' from what you posted was that the White House is trying to spin that even if they did listen to security concerns, they would have have allocated it to Tripoli and not Benghazi despite Steven's requests.

Why do you stick up for this guy?

BoatShoes;1295915 wrote:It was a jobs act and it ended the recession. It wasn't large enough for a full recovery though given the underestimations by the economic team and the massive purge of public employees undertaken by Republican controlled state governments. Without the stimulus growth would've been slower and unemployment higher. I don't suppose you now think tax cuts don't work eh? lol.

BoatShoes;1295917 wrote:The Republicans were completely United. The Democrats decided to act like Republicans for once and stand together. It would've made no sense for a liberal Senator in a safe state to take guys like Joe Manchin to task fighting for a budget that had no chance of getting through the House anyway or any reasonable middle ground in conference committee.

It was the smart play.

You're kidding yourself if you think that Barbara Boxer didn't agree with that budget in principle. Suddenly all these crazy liberals are supply side deficit scolds??? LOL.

They decided to keep the government running with continuing resolutions and avoid the bad politics of infighting over the president's budget and it's looking like a good strategy. Joe Manchin would have no chance of reelection in WV if he'd voted with the President on that and yet he looks like a win.

BoatShoes;1293982 wrote:Lol. Get the hell outta here guy. Democrats are fully behind this president.

BoatShoes;1295927 wrote:They modeled their approach there based upon experience with the embassies in Yemen. And, the responses were handled by mid-level state department civil servants. Ultimately the buck stops with Obama so it was a bungle and it's a tragedy that a man died but there are U.S. citizens dying over in the Middle East every week.

It's not the unbelievable scandal you're desperately hoping it is to get Romney across the finish line.

I spent the whole Bush presidency dealing with liberals overreacting and exaggerating like you are right now.

BoatShoes;1295747 wrote:This post is ironic. In it you say you change your views to the evidence. The IMF has come out and basically said that my views are warranted by the evidence as opposed to yours. This is especially credible in my opinion as the IMF has been the austerity/credible-path-to-balanced-budgets peddler for years.

The deficit is 20% lower than last year and it's going to be cut in half next year...and yet growth is slow and we're projected to be in recession next year as we credibly approach a balanced budget. Investors are not imposing austerity and they haven't in countries with their own currency. Stop saying that you get your beliefs from evidence when nothing you say reflects that.

Former Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball, who was on the commission, wrote about the importance of other key players in the reforms who were not on the commission, including Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill., chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Rep. J.J. Pickle, chair of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. He did not mention Biden.

Moynihan’s personal records about 13 days of meetings surrounding the 1983 reforms — cited during a tribute to Dole and inserted into the Congressional Record — go into great detail about the meetings held in the final days of negotiations.

“Tuesday, January 4, 1983 , 4:30 p.m.: Senators Dole and Moynihan meet with Robert J. Myers re Social Security,” the notes read. “Wednesday, January 5, 2:00 p.m.: Senator Moynihan meets privately with Alan Greenspan, Congressman Conable and Robert J. Myers re Social Security.” And so on. Biden is not mentioned.

In March 1983, a Washington Post editorial heralded the “many heroes in the fight to rescue Social Security,” citing Greenspan, Ball, Moynihan and Dole. Biden is not mentioned.

Biden in his memoir, &#8220romises to Keep,” makes no mention of this work on Social Security reform, nor is there any mention of it in Jules Witcover’s biography of the vice president. The 2005 biography of Robert Ball, “Robert Ball and the Politics of Social Security,” doesn’t mention Biden even once (as opposed to Dole, Moynihan, Pickle, Heinz, and so on.)

jhay78;1297873 wrote: Nice to see that most of the media care more about "binders of women" than exposing a legitimate case of the VP lying (again).

believer;1298027 wrote:I see it as yet another sign that the left is desperate to find something - anything - to swing Big Mo in their direction.

Manhattan Buckeye;1298032 wrote:This country has lost its collective mind.

believer;1298027 wrote:I see it as yet another sign that the left is desperate to find something - anything - to swing Big Mo in their direction.

Manhattan Buckeye;1298032 wrote:My God, don't get me started. I typically defended Obama in his "57 states gaffe." Obviously Barack Obama knows there are 50 states and got caught while he was tired and he made a mistake. He isn't an imbecile. That got about 5 seconds in the MSM and a lot more than that in the right wing blog media.

Now the "binders" comment which is a similar verbal gaffe is all of a sudden national news to the point we have sociologists analyzing it?

This country has lost its collective mind.

BoatShoes;1295927 wrote:They modeled their approach there based upon experience with the embassies in Yemen. And, the responses were handled by mid-level state department civil servants. Ultimately the buck stops with Obama so it was a bungle and it's a tragedy that a man died but there are U.S. citizens dying over in the Middle East every week.

It's not the unbelievable scandal you're desperately hoping it is to get Romney across the finish line.

I spent the whole Bush presidency dealing with liberals overreacting and exaggerating like you are right now.