American Nationalist to the Democratic Party(and its supporters): Stop crying foul

It angers me, frustrates the hell out of me when the Democratic Party cried and still cries about Bush, as we're on the verge of entering year 6 of the Obama Presidency. The Democrats held Super Majority control from the onset of the Revolution, and they were expected to do something with it. They chose for that 'something' to be Obamacare, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans wanted to focus on the Economy.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/01/22/economy-jobs-trump-all-other-policy-priorities-in-2009/

Did they forget their own campaign slogans?

And despite the Democrats yelling about some kind of Republican media blitz(laughable) surrounding the ACA. What part of the contention isn't true?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505144_162-57604782/study-insurance-costs-to-soar-under-obamacare/

The rising prices are true. Naturally, of course Businesses are going to cut hours where they can if they're forced to pay extra. That's not immoral(well, depending on how one views morality), that's just cold hard business. And it's confirmed that it depends on us, the youth carrying the weight.

So not only did Democrats give a big 'F U' to the vast majority of Americans, they gave it to us, the youth, who propelled their revolution. Go figure.

As if Obamacare and the "Republican" cry fest weren't enough, we always have this:

[video=youtube;Xece-D_Wru4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xece-D_Wru4[/video] (I wanted to find the one where he called opponents racists for opposing the ACA, but this is good enough).

His absurd charge back in 2009 is what allowed me to disown the Democrats and become a Nationalist, so I suppose I should "thank him"
but I couldn't have been angrier, I supported the Revolution and my only disdain was the economic costs, as well as the undemocratic process of forcing everyone at gun point or to pay a fine to go along with the beloved health care plan. But nope, according to Chris Matthews I had some other ulterior motive.

And so, the question I have of the Democrats is this: Can they defend their utterly miserable record doing nothing but giving away cash to corporations, forcing everyone and his mama under your mandate without espousing the word 'Republican' once? Can they defend how divisive and hateful they've been of the opposition? Never accounting for the fact there might be real, actual reasons FOR opposition?

Can they show the slightest bit of governance? The Republicans might control the House, but at a very slight fraction.

And the Dems hold the Senate. It was the President himself who pledged for unity.

[video=youtube;nv9NwKAjmt0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv9NwKAjmt0[/video]

Here's a perfect example of Democratic hypocrisy: Jobs, economy, infrastructure, education, etc.

First thing Obama tries to do: Gun Control

The American People have spoken, the ones who aren't listening to them isn't the Republicans, it's the Democrats.

They're the ones saying NO to us.

 

Prediction: Democrats will still be blaming Bush even after Obama is out of office. It can't ever be their fault. Nothing can. They are perfect and infallible.

 

Well technically before Obama came in to office he was handed a sinking ship. And in his effort to fix it he has been obstructed in every possible way. Now I don't blame Bush, I think Bush was a great President. But Bush was not a new age Republican. He was a normal Reagan type Republican who would make decisions that were more intelligent than the new age conservatives.

So bringing up the economic situation that was handed to Obama is not blaming Bush, it's simply stating a fact. I think Republicans bring up Bush more than Democrats. Even when someone mentions the bad economic situation Obama started off with they bring up blaming Bush.

If Obama was only allowed to do what conservatives allowed Bush to do, this country would be much better off. Statistically speaking Obama is the greatest fiscal conservative we've ever seen. And the results are expected by the intelligent people in this country.

 

I could not disagree with this more. However, it's nice to finally see an honest left-winger who admits this. I often wonder why more of them don't given that his policies were far from anything that resembles conservatism.

 

I've stated before that I'm dubious on whether or not we're really headed in the right direction,

Unemployment rate before Stimulus: 10.2% Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?_r=0
Unemployment rare currently: 7.3% Source: http://business.time.com/2013/09/20/unemployment-rates-rise-in-a-third-of-u-s-states/

A 3% reduction through his legacy so far. Will more spending really spur things and change it, as you say it will?

(And in fact I saw this little interesting tidbit): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...e-to-shrinking-labor-force-participation.html

I may not have all(or even any) of the answers, but weren't the derivatives basically a bunch of billions, housing market, isn't that all what Liberals blamed for the collapse? So how is more of the same any better?

 

Same thing with Reagan. Statistically Obama is the biggest fiscal conservative we have seen in a long time.

 

If it weren't for obstruction, the unemployment rate would be much lower.

 

Relatively speaking our government is spending less, hiring less then any time in our recent history.

And yes, one of the biggest problems I have had with Obama from the start is his lack of discipline on the very things that lead the market to collapse. A complete gamble on the part of Wall Street and banks. Luckily the investments are different, the derivatives aren't focused on some fallacy about continuous rising home prices. So I don't see anything on the horizon that could be devastating to our economy other than our politicians.

The economy is not headed in the right direction. I have stated this for over 3 years that nothing good is going to come out of what we are doing.

 

What a load of garbage! First, G.W. Bush was stink on a stick as president. Until Obama came along I honestly thought that Bush was the worst president we'd had since Jimmy Carter. Then in 2008 the non-thinking half of the Democratic Party rammed a first term U.S. senator with NO meaningful national level experience or history of management in any form whatsoever down this nation's throat while implying that somehow he was a Poltical Messiah. The result was a train-wreck and then unfortunately just enough non-thinkers shoved him back into office again in 2012.

So we will have had two stink on a stick presidents back to back over the course of SIXTEEN YEARS. So of course the nation is suffering. We can only hope that the next president to follow in 2016 [Republican or Democrat, male or female] will be both adequately experienced and actually competent, because I don't think we could endure yet another term with a total loser occupying the Oval Office.

 

Your opinion does not seem very credible. No offense.

 

Nor does yours. no offense.

 

It's not my opinion. It's facts. Something you could not use to support your useless opinion.

 

No, it's your opinion, an opinion refuted on a daily basis on either side of the political aisle.

 

Not at all. I present facts and only facts. The reason why you guys have to respond with your opinions.

 

Hahahahaha!

 

Case in point

 

Stop lying.

The Democrats had a semblance of unblockable control for a few weeks.

 

http://polipundit.com/?p=28927 Four months, more than a mere "few weeks".

 

If by a few weeks, you mean a few years then yeah.

 

Within the big picture, that's nitpicking.

Also, apparent control doesn't work for Dems like Repubs, who stick together like sheep. There are always more non-liberal Dems than non-conservative Repubs.

 

Anyone who looks it up will see that you are lying. What's your motivation?