Obama victory means four more years with no hope of change

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

This would be a good point if not for the fact that far more money was spent on getting Romney elected than on Obama. It turns out that you actually do have to have some sort of specific policy that you are consistently backing.

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

This would be a good point if not for the fact that far more money was spent on getting Romney elected than on Obama. It turns out that you actually do have to have some sort of specific policy that you are consistently backing.

I'm not talking about campaign expenditures, but of the simple fact that entitlements and promises to maintain and increase government funding are more enticing than cuts to the masses.

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

This would be a good point if not for the fact that far more money was spent on getting Romney elected than on Obama. It turns out that you actually do have to have some sort of specific policy that you are consistently backing.

I'm not talking about campaign expenditures, but of the simple fact that entitlements and promises to maintain and increase government funding are more enticing than cuts to the masses.

And this would be a good point if not for the fact that government spending increased 5.36% on average per year during the Bush administration, but has only increase 0.41% on average per year during the Obama administration.

othershoe1030 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

This would be a good point if not for the fact that far more money was spent on getting Romney elected than on Obama. It turns out that you actually do have to have some sort of specific policy that you are consistently backing.

I'm not talking about campaign expenditures, but of the simple fact that entitlements and promises to maintain and increase government funding are more enticing than cuts to the masses.

And this would be a good point if not for the fact that government spending increased 5.36% on average per year during the Bush administration, but has only increase 0.41% on average per year during the Obama administration.

That fact will never penetrate the propaganda bubble the right wing live in. If it doesn't "fit" with their belief system it just doesn't exist.

Good try though. Their minds are made up, cast in concrete don't confuse them with the facts.

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Dreamsglore wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

What it decided was Americans weren't buying your Republican dogma of lies and deceit.

nochain wrote:

What it really determined was enough people believed BHOs lies. What is he going to do different?

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

This would be a good point if not for the fact that far more money was spent on getting Romney elected than on Obama. It turns out that you actually do have to have some sort of specific policy that you are consistently backing.

I'm not talking about campaign expenditures, but of the simple fact that entitlements and promises to maintain and increase government funding are more enticing than cuts to the masses.

And this would be a good point if not for the fact that government spending increased 5.36% on average per year during the Bush administration, but has only increase 0.41% on average per year during the Obama administration.

stormwatch89 wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:

Dcat wrote:WASHINGTON — All that for nothing. It was the billion-dollar election that did not decide one single damned thing.

Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate. And the White House remains in Democratic hands with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.

Another four years with no hope of change.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/7/hurt-obama-victory-means-four-more-years-no-hope-c/

Sadly, it does provide a blue print for 2016.
Buy votes whatever the cost.

This would be a good point if not for the fact that far more money was spent on getting Romney elected than on Obama. It turns out that you actually do have to have some sort of specific policy that you are consistently backing.

I'm not talking about campaign expenditures, but of the simple fact that entitlements and promises to maintain and increase government funding are more enticing than cuts to the masses.