It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Leads- OBAMA 314---ROMNEY 224

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Based on HuffPost Pollster charts and analysis? hmmm

Sounds like bs propaganda nonsense to me.

A vote for Obama is a vote for the certain destruction of America.

Obama has turned the world against America.

Anyone that votes for Obama or encourages a vote for Obama is a traitor to the human race. And a chump.




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by InternetGremlin
 





Absolutely Amazing so many are so blind!


I tend to think that's a correct statement...but our so called media outlets have spun every one of those point to his favor with success...I dont think it's willful blindness to the facts.


I often wonder what happened to all of the diehard journalist. Now they all fight to suck the same teat of corruption they use to strive to expose.

I suppose those in denial must still believe what is fed to them is true and they can not admit reality or their world would crumble.
'You can ignore reality but, you can no ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.'

Neurolinguistic programming, multiplies their cognitive dissonance and now they are entirely indoctrinated. What better way for TPTB to create pawns than by having the pawns believe the lies themselves. It adds to plausible deniability when the 'sheep' believe it too.


Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment


Even when TRUTH falls on their heads as if a piano hitting them, they still ignore it!

WAGGING THE DOG!





IT IS NOT RON PAUL, IT IS HIS GENUINE MESSAGE!

If you can turn a computer on, giving you access to reality, and you STILL live in the fictional world the media creates, you are either brain dead or complicit!


edit on 24-6-2012 by InternetGremlin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by xuenchen
Of course it Appears that Bush "created" less jobs because unemployment averaged 5.3% under Bush !!!!!


That does not make any sense to me.
Like I said, you can lie to us and tell us how much worse off we are all you want.


Let's say me and you are looking to create jobs. You take a country with 5% unemployment, I take a country with 100% unemployment. Which of us has a far greater potential to create more jobs? Now do you understand how a lower unemployment rate means less job creation. If people are working you dont need job creation.


It's not the presidents place to create jobs. He has given the so called job creators their tax breaks that they wanted but they still fail to create jobs. These people should be rounded up and charged with fraud.


First, my response was to someone who thought having a lower unemployment rate would lead to more job creation. I am guessing you agree that is incorrect? Second, I agree, the President's job is not to create jobs, it is to get out of the way and create an atmosphere of security so that others may create jobs. Obama failed at this.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


You're right, everyone is making more money now than they ever did, because one person who is doing better must mean everyone is.

Yep, that is exactly what I said.


Just so you know, bush created 2,716 jobs in his first term, so far Obama has created 1,960, drinking the Kool-Aid much?

You source your numbers and I will source mine.


Source
www.truthfulpolitics.com...:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/

George W. Bush R 2001–2005 +2,716
Barack Obama D 2009–2013 +1,960 (through 2011)

This is a fact.


Here is what I found at your link.

404 error not found


Wow, that is convincing.

Here is a question, why are you truncating even your own source? Through what month in 2011? We are halfway through 2012 you know?
Did you look at your source?

You know there was a net loss of jobs by the end of Bush's second term?
Yeah, someone told you I was wrong and you really want me to be but all you have proven so far is you have no clue what you are talking about and apparently went to a rather suspicious little blog for your proof.


The source is not a error 404, it just cant be posted properly on ATS, copy and paste the whole thing. Show me which numbers I posted were in error. As was already stated the President is not the main source of job creation. In Bush second term who had control of the house and senate?

Again, tell me what numbers I posted that were in error, thanks.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Thank you for proving my point for me. So you guys that want Obama out, you liked that downward trend better than the upward trend?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Thank you for proving my point for me. So you guys that want Obama out, you liked that downward trend better than the upward trend?

In 2005 the trend was upwards. Want to know who took control of the house and senate in 2005? I will give you two guesses. Want to know who had the Presidency, house, and senate, during this huge plunge?



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
In 2005 the trend was upwards. Want to know who took control of the house and senate in 2005? I will give you two guesses.


The same people that are there now, during the upward trend.


Want to know who had the Presidency, house, and senate, during this huge plunge?

Bush was president.
See, I am replying to the concept that everything bad under Obama is Obama's fault. No one told me that everything bad that happened under Bush was the congress' fault.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
In 2005 the trend was upwards. Want to know who took control of the house and senate in 2005? I will give you two guesses.


The same people that are there now, during the upward trend.


Want to know who had the Presidency, house, and senate, during this huge plunge?

Bush was president.
See, I am replying to the concept that everything bad under Obama is Obama's fault. No one told me that everything bad that happened under Bush was the congress' fault.


So you think there was an upward trend in 2005? Very interesting. I think you need better glasses my friend. Presidents have very little to do with jobs, the House and Senate are far more responsible. The way Presidents help the job market is by staying out of the way as much as possible and being assertive with their plans. Obama did not stay out of the way and he created an air of uncertainty. The combination of Democrats controlling the House and Senate, as well as the Presidency was disastrous. If you can not see that on the graph you are blind.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
So you think there was an upward trend in 2005? Very interesting. I think you need better glasses my friend.


I will give you time to get your things together.
I never said anything about there being an upward trend in 2005. I never said anything about it at all.

On the other hand, you said...

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
In 2005 the trend was upwards. Want to know who took control of the house and senate in 2005? I will give you two guesses.


I am not sure. I guess you are going to have to quote me because this is the closest I found and you said it.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


It should have read you think there was an upward trend after 2005, that was my mistake. So up to 2005 the trend went up, then Democrats took control of the house and senate. The trend shifted downwards at this point. Things also appear to get better after the Democrats lose numerous seats and Republicans gain back the House.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


It should have read you think there was an upward trend after 2005, that was my mistake. So up to 2005 the trend went up, then Democrats took control of the house and senate. The trend shifted downwards at this point. Things also appear to get better after the Democrats lose numerous seats and Republicans gain back the House.


Either way, I already addressed your point.
You can still respond to it.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


No you didn't. During the Upward trend Republicans had control. Democrats took control and the trend changed from upwards to downwards.

The same people that are there now, during the upward trend.


The only way that makes sense is if you are saying once Democrats lost complete control of the House and Senate things got better (as now they do not control the house). So either you are agreeing that Democrats had control during the Downward spiral, and now they do not have control and things are getting better, or you are mistaken. Which are you saying? You do agree the downward spiral happened when Democrats had control of the house and Senate right?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


No you didn't. During the Upward trend Republicans had control. Democrats took control and the trend changed from upwards to downwards.


What are you looking at? It is still trending up at the end of that graph.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


No you didn't. During the Upward trend Republicans had control. Democrats took control and the trend changed from upwards to downwards.


What are you looking at? It is still trending up at the end of that graph.


Republican control of the House ?

Might make a difference.

Started in Jan 2011



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


No you didn't. During the Upward trend Republicans had control. Democrats took control and the trend changed from upwards to downwards.


What are you looking at? It is still trending up at the end of that graph.


Thank you for noticing it began to trend UP when Democrats lost control of the House. That is what I am looking at.

Democrats gain BOTH House and Senate - Afterwards we have a Down Trend
Republicans then gain control of the House - Afterwards we have a Upward Trend



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


No you didn't. During the Upward trend Republicans had control. Democrats took control and the trend changed from upwards to downwards.


What are you looking at? It is still trending up at the end of that graph.


Thank you for noticing it began to trend UP when Democrats lost control of the House. That is what I am looking at.

Democrats gain BOTH House and Senate - Afterwards we have a Down Trend
Republicans then gain control of the House - Afterwards we have a Upward Trend


You are still avoiding my original question. If job creation can only be credited to the house then how can you blame Obama for job losses?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


No you didn't. During the Upward trend Republicans had control. Democrats took control and the trend changed from upwards to downwards.


What are you looking at? It is still trending up at the end of that graph.


Republican control of the House ?

Might make a difference.

Started in Jan 2011



It is like a constant game of Russian dolls with you people.
Same question as above to you.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


I already answered. Job creation has little to do with the President. Job loss can be attributable to him. There is no easy way to assess this, it's not as cut and dry as jobs go up it's him, they go down it's him, or not him ever. The President's job as far as jobs are concerned is to create an air of certainty. To create stability and let businesses know exactly what the plan is, and stick to it. Obama created an air of uncertainty. As a result business responded to uncertainty by not hiring and storing cash. Cash that is stored hinders the economy. First, we have Democrats (as the graph is evidence of) destroying jobs, and then Obama steps in and works against restoring the lost jobs. So to sum it up, Democrats in the House and Senate bear the brunt of the responsibility of the lost jobs, Obama is responsible for hindering the return of those jobs, he is not responsible for their loss. Although every job he hindered its growth is in a way a lost job.



posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by habitforming
 


I already answered. Job creation has little to do with the President. Job loss can be attributable to him.


Ah, of course. Because that just makes sense.
Let me guess, Republican presidents are the opposite? They can only create jobs but cannot be credited for losing jobs?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join