I will again look at his record to make my decision again in 2012.
Thanks to Obama's foreign and domestic policies we are still deep in recession despite his mouth pieces declaring "recovery"

Leadership: We're starting to
grasp how hard a job the president has. It can't be easy to rule a
country filled with so many soft, lazy, greedy fat cats who can't make
good stuff anymore.
At a business forum Saturday, President Obama complained that "we've
been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades." He apparently
meant we've let foreign investment go slack, since "we aren't out there
hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into
America."
But this is just the latest slur against the United States uttered by its leader.
In October, Obama complained that "we have lost our ambition, our
imagination and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden
Gate Bridge." Earlier that month he groused that the U.S. "used to have
the best stuff" but doesn't anymore. In September he described America
as having "gotten a little soft."
And that's when he hasn't been complaining about greedy Wall Street executives who think they deserve to make a profit.
But calling America lazy is going too far.
First of all, foreign direct investment has more than tripled over
the past two decades. So it's hardly like businesses abroad haven't
noticed that the U.S. is a good place to invest.
And while the president might have been too busy writing
autobiographies to notice, the past two decades have shown an America
that is anything but soft or lazy. Since our president doesn't seem to
know about this, here's a quick review:
We
have invented, among many other things, an entirely new industry — the
Internet — that has reshaped almost every aspect of our lives, from
communication to education to medicine to commerce. Every great Internet
company — Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Yahoo — has been
born in the U.S.
We've produced incredible breakthroughs in science, medicine and
technology — everything from smartphones, DVDs, digital cameras and flat
panel TVs to the mapping of the human genome and spectacular new
medical technologies.
In the past two decades, we've managed to add more than two
additional years to our lives thanks to gains in medicine and health
care. And competitive forces have produced continued efficiency gains,
letting the country do more with less energy.
And even before Obama arrived on the scene, the nation managed to
defeat communism, mount a global war on terrorism, liberate Kuwait from
Iraq and then Iraq from Saddam Hussein — the latter two in a matter of
days.
You'd think the president would want to boast about a country that's
produced so much in so short a time. But when Obama looks out his Oval
Office window, he apparently sees a nation filled on the one hand with
layabouts — or, as his wife described them during his presidential run,
the "uninvolved and uninformed" — and on the other with greedy, selfish
millionaires and billionaires.
Maybe Obama is mistaking his own experience as president for some broader trends.
It's certainly true that many things have gotten worse since he took
office. Unemployment is up, earnings are down. The poverty rate has
climbed, the dollar has fallen. Gas prices are way up but housing prices
are way down. And the economic recovery, which started a mere five
months after Obama was sworn in, has been the most anemic since the
Great Depression.
But despite Obama's endless efforts to shift blame, the fault for
these trends lies not with the American people or the actions of his
predecessors. It lies with Obama's own wrongheaded efforts that have
vastly expanded the size and intrusiveness of government, weighed the
country down with massive debt and threatened ever higher taxes.
Americans don't need lectures from their president about how soft,
selfish or shiftless they've become. We need only to relieve the country
of his policies.
You must be a member of the group Politics Government to vote on this poll.
House Financial Services Committee hearing on proposed new regulations for Fannie and Freddie, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.):" I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness (e.g. George Bush's warnings!), the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . ."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez during the same hearing: "Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [Fannie & Freddie] ever missed their housing goals?"
House Fi...&
&&
House Financial Services Committee hearing on proposed new regulations for Fannie and Freddie, Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.):" I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness (e.g. George Bush's warnings!), the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . ."
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez during the same hearing: "Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [Fannie & Freddie] ever missed their housing goals?"
House Financial Services Committee hearing, again on proposal to regulate Fannie & Freddie Sept. 25, 2003: Rep. Frank: "I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . ."
So Bush wanted to regulate for "safety and soundness," Maxine and Barney didn't. Barney wanted to "roll the dice," Bush didn't -- who is it that cause the housing crisis and financial meltdown?
Remember January 1, 2007!!! Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for
2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011. The Republicans took control of the House
only in the 2010 election and have been responsible for budgets in FY 2012 and
2013. While the Republicans in the House have passed and sent to the Senate a
budget each year they've been in power, it has been over three years since the
Harry Reid-led Democrat senate has even passed a budget. Meanwhile the budgets Obama has submitted have been so outlandish they haven't received a single vote, even from House Democrats!
I suggest you educate yourself before following the party line and "blaming Bush!" Read "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson, financial editor/writer for the New York Times. Ms. Morgenson, certainly not a right-winger, lays the blame squarely where it belongs, in Bill Clinton's lap, and the laps of the Democrats in congress who prevented Bush from getting his bills to regulate Fannie and Freddie. Amazingly, the Democrats passed the Dodd-Frank bill creating mountains of regulations for the banking industry and didn't even touch the two entities that were at the heart of the housing crisis, Fannie and Freddie.
When your neighbor loses his job it is a recession. When you lose your job it is a depression. When Obama loses his job, there will be recovery!
all lie's.Begone Obama,and take your precious Rev.Wright with you.
OBAMA MUST GO!
selfish or shiftless they've become. We need only to relieve the country
of his policies."
this pretty much says it all
I will again look at his record to make my decision again in 2012.
Thanks to Obama's foreign and domestic policies we are still deep in recession despite his mouth pieces declaring "recovery"
his to manipulate any way he want's.
If you want to know the truth about the dismal failure that "intellectuals" have been in their attempts to direct society, read Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society." Read it with an open mind and it will open your eyes.
I say great!!!!!!! Go somewhere else and appoint me President. He can do that by having Joe resign and appointing me VP. I'd ONLY accept under those conditions.
The US Military, is but a figment of the imagination compared to our ultimate weapon.
I'm not a member of that group either.