How about some looks at Obama's history while in the White House:

________________________________________________________

President Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History

The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

Waving a planted press commentary, Obama recently claimed on the campaign stump, “federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any President in almost 60 years.”

http://www.forbes.co...-world-history/

________________________________________________________

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

By STEVE FRIESS | 6/16/12 7:02 AM EDT Updated: 6/16/12 8:21 PM EDT

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz3qCxfyB00

Yo, chuckd, I already posted that second link. Get with the program bud! Not like there aren't more than enough examples of Obama violating the law that we need to post the same links.

Contrary to right wing propaganda, Obama only had the now need SIXTY senate votes for a FEW MONTHS. The people mandating Obama to do SOMETHING. It's not his fault that he fell victim to a vicious right wing obstructionist agenda that is massively harmful to the nation..

Contrary to right wing propaganda, Obama only had the now need SIXTY senate votes for a FEW MONTHS.

Sorry, I didn't know rules of the Senate changed this year. Can you provide a link so I can catch up on these new rules?

Another blatant, cynical, political ploy from The Amateur.

Contrary to right wing propaganda, Obama only had the now need SIXTY senate votes for a FEW MONTHS. The people mandating Obama to do SOMETHING. It's not his fault that he fell victim to a vicious right wing obstructionist agenda that is massively harmful to the nation..

When Obama took office in 2009 he had 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 independents that caucused with the Democrats. He maintained basically this balance until the death of Ted Kennedy when a Republican was elected to replace him.

Obamacare was passed by the Senate on 24 December 2009 by a vote of 60-39 so he had a super majority for the life of the 111th Congress which was two years...not a "few months".

In 2010 the bi-annual election was held and the Democrats lost several seats with the count now at 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans and the same 2 Independents.

It still takes only 51 votes to pass legislation unless there is the threat of a filibuster. The problem is Harry Reid has found it easier to blame the Republican threat of a filibuster for the non-passage of legislation rather than requiring his Democratic Senators take a vote which might cause them harm in any upcoming elections.

So, are the Republicans blocking or are the Democrats simply spineless?

How can you be so misinformed? SHOCKING. Not to mention disingenuous. I use that word a lot to describe the right wing positions expressed here because it fits so well, again and again and again.

The filibuster, for example. I grew up knowing vaguely about it. That southern senators would go down to the floor and read the phone book or cook books or something. You know the figures better than I do, in a hundred years the filibuster was used 30 times and it the last five years it’s been used 100 times. It’s become an absolutely routine way of doing business and as I understand it is all you have to do is have Mitch McConnell call Harry Reid and say I’ll filibuster and there you go, it needs 60 votes.

That’s ridiculous. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The Framers knew fractions. There are places in the Constitution where it says three-fifths, three-quarters, two-thirds. It doesn’t say 60 percent, a supermajority to pass a bill in the United States Senate.

My view of the filibuster is either you’ve got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.

http://www.washingto...QkvUV_blog.html

Pretty much every bill in the Senate needs 60 votes to pass these days, which is another topic for another day.

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/08/154579988/president-turns-to-fashionistas-for-support

How can you be so misinformed? SHOCKING. Not to mention disingenuous. I use that word a lot to describe the right wing positions expressed here because it fits so well, again and again and again.

The filibuster, for example. I grew up knowing vaguely about it. That southern senators would go down to the floor and read the phone book or cook books or something. You know the figures better than I do, in a hundred years the filibuster was used 30 times and it the last five years it’s been used 100 times. It’s become an absolutely routine way of doing business and as I understand it is all you have to do is have Mitch McConnell call Harry Reid and say I’ll filibuster and there you go, it needs 60 votes.

That’s ridiculous. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The Framers knew fractions. There are places in the Constitution where it says three-fifths, three-quarters, two-thirds. It doesn’t say 60 percent, a supermajority to pass a bill in the United States Senate.

My view of the filibuster is either you’ve got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.

http://www.washingto...QkvUV_blog.html

Pretty much every bill in the Senate needs 60 votes to pass these days, which is another topic for another day.

http://www.npr.org/2...tas-for-support

Ah, the filibuster! Used unsuccessfully by the DEMOCRATS back in 1964 in their attempt to deny Civil Rights to blacks. Look it up.

Ah, the filibuster! Used unsuccessfully by the DEMOCRATS back in 1964 in their attempt to deny Civil Rights to blacks. Look it up.

We are not talking about 1964. We are talking about NOW. I see you have no relevant rebuttal to the horrific modern situation of needing 60 votes in the senate. As informed people know the democratic party in the SOUTH used to be a very anti-black racist party. That is long ago history. Back to 2012, OK?

How can you be so misinformed? SHOCKING. Not to mention disingenuous. I use that word a lot to describe the right wing positions expressed here because it fits so well, again and again and again.

The filibuster, for example. I grew up knowing vaguely about it. That southern senators would go down to the floor and read the phone book or cook books or something. You know the figures better than I do, in a hundred years the filibuster was used 30 times and it the last five years it’s been used 100 times. It’s become an absolutely routine way of doing business and as I understand it is all you have to do is have Mitch McConnell call Harry Reid and say I’ll filibuster and there you go, it needs 60 votes.

That’s ridiculous. The Constitution doesn’t say that. The Framers knew fractions. There are places in the Constitution where it says three-fifths, three-quarters, two-thirds. It doesn’t say 60 percent, a supermajority to pass a bill in the United States Senate.

My view of the filibuster is either you’ve got to lower vote edge or make people really filibuster if they feel that seriously about a piece of legislation.

http://www.washingto...QkvUV_blog.html

Pretty much every bill in the Senate needs 60 votes to pass these days, which is another topic for another day.

http://www.npr.org/2...tas-for-support

I will not respond to your personal attack but will simply provide you the information needed.

1. Your first link borders on the ridiculous. The author makes this claim..."The Framers knew fractions. There are places in the Constitution where it says three-fifths, three-quarters, two-thirds. It doesn’t say 60 percent, a supermajority to pass a bill in the United States Senate."

I always thought three-fifths was the same as 60%. Perhaps the author was taught new math and failed to learn fractions, as the Framers did.

2. The super-majority came from the Rule of Cloture, which was adopted by the US Congress in 1919. The purpose of Cloture is to end debate and call for a vote and originally required a two-thirds majority to succeed (That's 67% for our mathematically challenged author). The Democratically controlled Senate of 1975 changed the 67% to the current lower level of 60% because...that's how many votes they had. Here is the link for suggested reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture

3. Budget bills are passed under the Reconciliation Rule, which requires a simply majority, or 51%.

The current Democratic Senate can pass any bill that affects the economy with a simple majority vote (51%). In other words, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) could call any of those more than 30 jobs bills that have already been passed by the Republican House of Representatives for a vote tomorrow. He has chosen not to do so as he does not wish to embarrass his own Democratic caucus. For your reading pleasure:

http://en.wikipedia....tates_Congress)

Ah, the filibuster! Used unsuccessfully by the DEMOCRATS back in 1964 in their attempt to deny Civil Rights to blacks. Look it up.

We are not talking about 1964. We are talking about NOW. I see you have no relevant rebuttal to the horrific modern situation of needing 60 votes in the senate. As informed people know the democratic party in the SOUTH used to be a very anti-black racist party. That is long ago history. Back to 2012, OK?

The Democrats still treat blacks as inferiors who can't succeed by hard work. THAT is true racism.

Doesn't all this mud-slinging end up as one big soup? Nobody takes much notice, except of the things which affect their own lives... more money in the pocket, cheaper medicare, less direct taxation (indirect taxation matters less, because they don't see it). And then those that have always been Rep, vote Rep, and those that always voted Dem, vote Dem.

The chattering classes (among which I include forum posters) rejoice in minutiae, scare headlines, and the wicked, wicked things Obama/Romney did before we ever heard about them. Give me a sinless President, and I'll tell you you have missed the Millenium.

Another blatant, cynical, political ploy from The Amateur.

Heard it's at the #1 spot NY Times book sales.

How can people be so negative towards this obviously handicapped individual?

And then those that have always been Rep, vote Rep, and those that always voted Dem, vote Dem.

There are more and more people who vote as independents and they will decide the election.

And then those that have always been Rep, vote Rep, and those that always voted Dem, vote Dem.

There are more and more people who vote as independents and they will decide the election.

A general rule of thumb is 40% will vote Democrat no matter what, 40% will vote Republican no matter what and the remaining 20% the politicians actually need to convince.

Obama keeps trying to bribe voters, but the hits keep on comin'...

Obama's Harvard law professor says 'President MUST be defeated in 2012'

A former professor of Barack Obama has turned against his one-time student and publicly urged voters not to re-elect him.

Roberto Unger posted a video on YouTube detailing the reasons why he believes the President does not deserve a second term in the White House.

Mr Unger, a prominent Brazilian politician and an adviser to Obama in 2008, said: 'President Obama must be defeated in the coming election. He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States.'

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1y9WXTutB

I agree Obama isn't leftist enough. Just as the Brazilian says. But to replace him with the right winger, that's crazy.

Replacing him with anyone besides Ron Paul would be an improvement.

Replacing him with anyone besides Ron Paul would be an improvement.

Well, we disagree on that one.

How about replacing him with Rand Paul as a compromise?

Replacing him with Joe the Plumber or Dick the dogcatcher would be preferable to his reelection...

This thread has become a trash Obama party. No point in even trying to make an argument here. Nothing will change the hard core opinions.

This thread has become a trash Obama party. No point in even trying to make an argument here. Nothing will change the hard core opinions.

Just calling a spade a spade here.

Obama is a loser. Even Mayor Bloomberg has voiced support for Romney.

Then there's this:

Obama Promises America: “I Will Not Rest Until Everyone Can Find a Job”… Then Goes and Plays 100 Rounds of Golf

In July 2010 President Barack Obama promised suffering Americans:

“I will not rest until everyone American who is able, and ready and willing to work can find a job. And a job that pays a decent wage and has decent benefits to support a family.”

Guess he believes he's 'resting' when on the golf course?

This thread has become a trash Obama party. No point in even trying to make an argument here. Nothing will change the hard core opinions.

I don't think any of us here are hard core Romney supporters. I don't think flying will mind me classifying him as a hard core Ron Paul supporter. I voted for Paul in the primary and would be more enthusiastic if he were on the ticket in November, but he won't be. You, on the other hand, are obviously a hard core Obama supporter.

With only one Obama supporter on this thread it might look like a Trash Obama Party. But if it is, blame his 3+ year record. Think of it, THREE YEARS and what Obama accomplishment is he campaigning on? Health Care reform? No, that might get ko'd by the Supreme Court any day and even if it doesn't it is highly unpopular. Closing Gitmo? Nope. The near trillion dollar stimulus that revived the economy? Never happened so nope. Kicking the national debt down the road?

The biggest issues today are the economy, jobs, national debt (even over war & terrorism). Obama is running on free contraception for women, same-sex marriage and allowing nearly one million illegals stay. Obama deserves to get trashed.

Given that in actual REALITY the USA is (as usual) split almost 50/50, I just don't have the energy to even try here anymore in this unbalanced totally biased hating on Obama environment. You never even bother to listen to anything I say and your only defense is I'm posting left wing talking points (LAZY) when I post facts such as the right wing overuse of forcing 60 votes in the senate. You know you have this MOB of people that will accept and applaud your lazy rebuttals. So even more than MOST of this forum, a TOTAL waste of time talking to you Obama demonizers. I will say I'll bet any of you -- Obama will win and I will enjoy your outrage when that happens very, very much.

Yes, posting left wing talking points is lazy, but at least you are quick about it. Pretty much everything you share with us is on Media Matters a few hours before you post it here.

This thread has become a trash Obama party. No point in even trying to make an argument here. Nothing will change the hard core opinions.

I don't think any of us here are hard core Romney supporters. I don't think flying will mind me classifying him as a hard core Ron Paul supporter. I voted for Paul in the primary and would be more enthusiastic if he were on the ticket in November, but he won't be. You, on the other hand, are obviously a hard core Obama supporter.

With only one Obama supporter on this thread it might look like a Trash Obama Party. But if it is, blame his 3+ year record. Think of it, THREE YEARS and what Obama accomplishment is he campaigning on? Health Care reform? No, that might get ko'd by the Supreme Court any day and even if it doesn't it is highly unpopular. Closing Gitmo? Nope. The near trillion dollar stimulus that revived the economy? Never happened so nope. Kicking the national debt down the road?

The biggest issues today are the economy, jobs, national debt (even over war & terrorism). Obama is running on free contraception for women, same-sex marriage and allowing nearly one million illegals stay. Obama deserves to get trashed.

If Obama loses and my view at this juncture is that he will not, it will because he didn't crack down on Wall Street and arrest EVEN ONE of the hundreds of felons that helped perpetrate the Financial Crisis. Most people agree that it will take time to work out of this crisis and the most important thing is to not make more mistakes. What they'll not forgive IMO is the perception that OBAMA is a bought and paid for puppet stooge of Wall Street. He should have had'em do some perp walks and because he didn't he may lose this election.

He will most likely lose this election and it will because of the economy that he promised to fix and made worse instead.

If Obama loses and my view at this juncture is that he will not, it will because he didn't crack down on Wall Street and arrest EVEN ONE of the hundreds of felons that helped perpetrate the Financial Crisis. Most people agree that it will take time to work out of this crisis and the most important thing is to not make more mistakes. What they'll not forgive IMO is the perception that OBAMA is a bought and paid for puppet stooge of Wall Street. He should have had'em do some perp walks and because he didn't he may lose this election.

It is true just one was jailed although not by Obama but because he had the audacity to rip off the rich.... ( Bernie Madoff )

It is also true that many will not forgive Obama. Even my mom (RIP) who voted for him last time was disgusted by how she & everyone

who voted for the promise of "Hope & Change" & "Yes We Can!" were so easily taken.

The reason why so many now feel so betrayed & cheated is in the last election Obama did in fact sell those slogans very well.

He made the mistake of not realizing when you REALLY sell that HOPE folks expect it.

To then turn around & not only be the usual puppet stooge that the American citizens have come to expect of most

lying if their lips move politicians ....but to be even worse & not deliver zip in the way of Hope....zip in the way of Change

Well............even for folks like my mom it was too much.

" Yes We Can" instead was replaced by.....well........we didn't know it was so FUBAR & well.........those terrible Republicans are always blocking me. Yet that is not what he preached to get elected. He preached at a time of great upheaval. He knew full well what he was promising.

He will never be remembered in a positive way. He will always be known as a false prophet with a slick PR campaign that fooled the majority.

Sad really because when things are at their worst as they have been....That is the time when a truly great leader can make changes that will be talked about for generations.

Here is Daniel Greenfield's take on Obama, too good not to post here imho.

http://www.sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/06/king-con-legend-of-obama.html

Given that in actual REALITY the USA is (as usual) split almost 50/50, I just don't have the energy to even try here anymore in this unbalanced totally biased hating on Obama environment. You never even bother to listen to anything I say and your only defense is I'm posting left wing talking points (LAZY) when I post facts such as the right wing overuse of forcing 60 votes in the senate. You know you have this MOB of people that will accept and applaud your lazy rebuttals. So even more than MOST of this forum, a TOTAL waste of time talking to you Obama demonizers. I will say I'll bet any of you -- Obama will win and I will enjoy your outrage when that happens very, very much.

Please go to post number 459 and you will see my response to your post on the 60 vote issue.