Democrats turn 'Where are the jobs?' ...

Democrats turn 'Where are the jobs?' chant on GOP

There are 234 comments on the Daytona Beach News-Journal Online story from Feb 17, 2011, titled Democrats turn 'Where are the jobs?' chant on GOP. In it, Daytona Beach News-Journal Online reports that:

Republicans won sweeping victories last November by taunting Democrats with "Where are the jobs?" Democrats are now throwing those taunts back, saying it's Republicans who will knock thousands of Americans out of work with their demands for deep cuts in federal spending.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daytona Beach News-Journal Online.

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Gerry

Fostoria, OH

#253 Feb 22, 2011
indy wrote:
<quoted text>...i followed it too.... it wasnt bush war, it was alqeadas, it was declared on clintons watch, but i agree it did cost alot of $$ when we finally decided to fight back, under bush, afg didnt attack us anymore than the taliban did, my friedns who served in both theatres say the press was way off on iraq, and where do u think alqeada of iraq was? iraq maybe? i know many on the left feared wed be victorious in iraq, that would mean bush would get credit... while the left was invested in defeat....remember biden said iraq could be one of this admins biggest accomplishment, but wasnt so much into crediting bush..what a joker...like him or not, saddam was a terrorist. i think gassing people and blowing them up on purpose is terrorism. but many dont...he was also bent on destroying millions in israel.. also clinton bombed iraq too.. he must have had a reason, probably because all his dem pals told us saddam has wmd a hundered times, b4 bush was in, alqeada isnt just just everywhere but iraq....i look at it like if a guy from ny wants to kill me, and i see him in chicago, he still wants to kill me, location isnt a matter, im glad my nephs killed a bunch of alqeada while in iraq, i beleieve the marines b4 i do the left wing media, but if you were there, ill be glad to listen to more....strange how when bush went into iraq, terror attacks on us went to the lowest since b4 clinton, i think it was 7 or 8 during the clinton regime, sometimes it happens that way, viet nam, korea, germany never attacked us.....nor did iraq or afgh..... with iraq it was us alone, and 32 other countries, our dems, then repubs, that felt he was a threat... i wish clinton took bin when he had the chances too, also, abu nidal died in a baghdad hospital, another toerrist..... i totally agree that we need to reinvest in us, and vocational training is a great idea, i agree on alot u say, we need jobs here, mine has been out, oops insourced by illegals, i need to change jobs now, and i dont have $$ to do it.... invest in americans..get rid of clinotns NAFTA, thats where the jobs went, also, i recall alqeada saying they were in a quagmire in iraq, my neps didnt feel our guys were,they were there. quagmire, thats just a lefty buzz word...u have a great day gerry....
It was a policy of Bush 41 and Clinton not to go into Iraq as it would be a quagmire. And quagmire it was. We had a policy also to keep Iraq and Iran as equals in the Middle East. So these policies went on in different administrations and the reason was that it would be a quagmire is that Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and that was a minority and most of the population was Shiite. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. They came in afterwords. Our fight was with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and leaving Afghanistan today would create a void. Bush had Osama Bin Laden in the battle of Tora Bora and gave up on it. In any case, Bush never paid for the wars and never had enough troops. Saddam Hussein was a secularist and did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda. No matter what he did to his people, we still had policies in place not to put ourselves into a quagmire. Bush in his haste and his ignorance and arrogance thought otherwise. Bush never consulted his own father and when asked, he said "I believe in a Higher Authority." So there you go, we had a Christian right wing social conservative who answered to God. Well, a lot of people died. And Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan. You know, the one that attacked us.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/
indy

Mansfield, MA

#255 Feb 23, 2011
Gerry wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a policy of Bush 41 and Clinton not to go into Iraq as it would be a quagmire. And quagmire it was. We had a policy also to keep Iraq and Iran as equals in the Middle East. So these policies went on in different administrations and the reason was that it would be a quagmire is that Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and that was a minority and most of the population was Shiite. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. They came in afterwords. Our fight was with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and leaving Afghanistan today would create a void. Bush had Osama Bin Laden in the battle of Tora Bora and gave up on it. In any case, Bush never paid for the wars and never had enough troops. Saddam Hussein was a secularist and did not have anything to do with Al Qaeda. No matter what he did to his people, we still had policies in place not to put ourselves into a quagmire. Bush in his haste and his ignorance and arrogance thought otherwise. Bush never consulted his own father and when asked, he said "I believe in a Higher Authority." So there you go, we had a Christian right wing social conservative who answered to God. Well, a lot of people died. And Osama Bin Laden is in Pakistan. You know, the one that attacked us.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/
....vp said bin laden was in afgh... i remember vp saying, "we know where he is, and were gonna go get him"... well? you or vp were wrong, i wish clinton got him when he had the chances too... funny how no-one ever mentions the war that was left to bush..... alqeada declared war on us in the 90's, bush came after. and i am glad he killed so many alqeada,someone had to fight back, acc to alqeada of iraq, and marines, there is/was alqeada in iraq, but no doubt its all based on hatred for infidels, aka,anyone who chooses another religion other than theirs..... its easy to tell who has a good country, and who doesnt, just look at how many sneak in here, and try to sneak out of others.... we see what is happening in the mideast this month, didnt hear much out of libya during bush..... no one fears us now

“Concerned in Tennessee”

Since: Dec 07

Knoxville, TN

#257 Feb 23, 2011
indy wrote:
<quoted text>....vp said bin laden was in afgh... i remember vp saying, "we know where he is, and were gonna go get him"... well? you or vp were wrong, i wish clinton got him when he had the chances too... funny how no-one ever mentions the war that was left to bush..... alqeada declared war on us in the 90's, bush came after. and i am glad he killed so many alqeada,someone had to fight back, acc to alqeada of iraq, and marines, there is/was alqeada in iraq, but no doubt its all based on hatred for infidels, aka,anyone who chooses another religion other than theirs..... its easy to tell who has a good country, and who doesnt, just look at how many sneak in here, and try to sneak out of others.... we see what is happening in the mideast this month, didnt hear much out of libya during bush..... no one fears us now
Wow... you are incredibly misinformed.

There was not Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we went in an destabilized the region. Sadam was a bad guy, but he was secularist who suppressed the religious nut jobs in Iraq when he was in power. It wasn't until the whole country was in turmoil that Al Qaeda moved in and started funneling insurgents into Iraq.

So... no Al Qaeda... why did we invade Iraq then? Well, two reasons. First, Bush failed to get Bin Laden after 9/11, so he had to manufacture a "victory" in the short term or it would have been a political disaster. A quick victory in the short term would be a distraction to the American people over the fact that they had failed to get the real architect of 9/11... Bin Laden.

The second benefit of invading Iraq is that we could plunder their natural resources, in this case oil, and funnel many lucrative defense contracts to Bush administration cronies. An example of this... Halliburton, whom Dick Cheney used to run, got extremely FAT off of no bid contracts for "reconstruction" and defense during our "reconstruction" efforts.

To sum up... We didn't get Bin Laden, we mired ourselves in an unwanted occupation, lost a lot of US lives (not to mention civilian casualties) and opened the flood gates for terrorist organizations to come in and set up shop in the region.

Yeah Sadam was a brutal dictator... and killed a lot of his own people, but in rooting him out, we have made an even bigger mess, and gotten way more civilians killed then he ever did. In the process, we made defense contractors rich while bankrupting the American tax payers to do it.

Now picture George W. Bush standing in front of a "mission accomplished" banner. Sickening isn't it?

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#258 Feb 23, 2011
TN Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow... you are incredibly misinformed.
There was not Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we went in an destabilized the region. Sadam was a bad guy, but he was secularist who suppressed the religious nut jobs in Iraq when he was in power. It wasn't until the whole country was in turmoil that Al Qaeda moved in and started funneling insurgents into Iraq.
So... no Al Qaeda... why did we invade Iraq then? Well, two reasons. First, Bush failed to get Bin Laden after 9/11, so he had to manufacture a "victory" in the short term or it would have been a political disaster. A quick victory in the short term would be a distraction to the American people over the fact that they had failed to get the real architect of 9/11... Bin Laden.
The second benefit of invading Iraq is that we could plunder their natural resources, in this case oil, and funnel many lucrative defense contracts to Bush administration cronies. An example of this... Halliburton, whom Dick Cheney used to run, got extremely FAT off of no bid contracts for "reconstruction" and defense during our "reconstruction" efforts.
To sum up... We didn't get Bin Laden, we mired ourselves in an unwanted occupation, lost a lot of US lives (not to mention civilian casualties) and opened the flood gates for terrorist organizations to come in and set up shop in the region.
Yeah Sadam was a brutal dictator... and killed a lot of his own people, but in rooting him out, we have made an even bigger mess, and gotten way more civilians killed then he ever did. In the process, we made defense contractors rich while bankrupting the American tax payers to do it.
Now picture George W. Bush standing in front of a "mission accomplished" banner. Sickening isn't it?
A little know fact about Halliburton is that at the time Halliburton was getting those mega no-bid contracts it was a combination of two companies that had merged while Cheney was running Halliburton. The other company that had merged with Halliburton was Dresser Corporation. Dresser was the cornerstone of the Bush family wealth. Dresser had originally been underwritten by Prescott Bush. It was the first company HW had worked for. HW named his son Neil Mellon Bush after Neil Mellon who was the president of Dresser. Halliburton was founded by Brown Brothers who were Prescott BushÂ’s business partners and confederates. Dresser and Halliburton were parallel corporations who often bid different aspects of the same projects together. It is amazing how many companies with Bush Family investments got major no-bid contracts.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#259 Feb 23, 2011
LOL wrote:
evidently obama still has all the jobs stockpiled somewhere.
he said he was creating millions of jobs all over the country, everywhere...thousands every month.
but, they are not on the market for people to fill the jobs.
so, the problem now is not to create more jobs ....
buy, to get obama to release all those millions of jobs he already created.
Sorry but the Republicans aborted all most jobs before they were ever born with their endless filibusters. The Republicans ran in 2010 promising to create more jobs. Since taking control of the House they have tried to repeal or de-fund every Democratic bill that creates private sector jobs and keep demanding public sector layoffs. Not only are they doing the exact opposite of what they promised during the campaign they are also again trying to push every social issue through that the American public has repeatedly rejected over the last fifty years.
NOW HIRING

Pasadena, CA

#260 Feb 23, 2011
Gadhafi is hiring mercenaries from all over the world for $4K a week!!! Go get back some of your oil and gas money!!!
Ho Lee Schitt

Warrington, PA

#261 Feb 23, 2011
The only jobs rethugs are interested in is the same kind of job Larry Craig got from another pervert!
indy

Mansfield, MA

#262 Feb 24, 2011
TN Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow... you are incredibly misinformed.
There was not Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we went in an destabilized the region. Sadam was a bad guy, but he was secularist who suppressed the religious nut jobs in Iraq when he was in power. It wasn't until the whole country was in turmoil that Al Qaeda moved in and started funneling insurgents into Iraq.
So... no Al Qaeda... why did we invade Iraq then? Well, two reasons. First, Bush failed to get Bin Laden after 9/11, so he had to manufacture a "victory" in the short term or it would have been a political disaster. A quick victory in the short term would be a distraction to the American people over the fact that they had failed to get the real architect of 9/11... Bin Laden.
The second benefit of invading Iraq is that we could plunder their natural resources, in this case oil, and funnel many lucrative defense contracts to Bush administration cronies. An example of this... Halliburton, whom Dick Cheney used to run, got extremely FAT off of no bid contracts for "reconstruction" and defense during our "reconstruction" efforts.
To sum up... We didn't get Bin Laden, we mired ourselves in an unwanted occupation, lost a lot of US lives (not to mention civilian casualties) and opened the flood gates for terrorist organizations to come in and set up shop in the region.
Yeah Sadam was a brutal dictator... and killed a lot of his own people, but in rooting him out, we have made an even bigger mess, and gotten way more civilians killed then he ever did. In the process, we made defense contractors rich while bankrupting the American tax payers to do it.
Now picture George W. Bush standing in front of a "mission accomplished" banner. Sickening isn't it?
ill stick with believing the guys who were there...and my own memories of what lead up to all this....and have u seen the video of all the big dems telling us, b4 bush, that saddam had wmd?...sickening that they lied.... i think you are misinformed also...so are u saying bush got al qeada to come to fight in iraq instead of concentrating on attacking us here in the us?... strange how that when we went into iraq, we didnt get hit here.... attacks were down, on avg, under bush, as opposed to clinton watch... but alot of my left pals dont count the start of the war against us...just noticed it after 9-11..9th attack on us?..alqeada declared war on us and clinton b4 bush.... its alqeadas fault, u blame who u want....and i know about all the haliburton connections and yada yada yada... yep no doubt, clinton,bush,obama all deal with haliburton.... well, maybe bush and the repubs and all the dems will gret nailed for lying to us about saddam and wmd....would you rather bet on the difference?... sorry bush deciamted much of alqeada? im not, i feel my military buddies did good, and they know more about it that you...unless of course you were there? maybe all the mil guys are lying....are you gonna tell me also that obama didnt promise shovel ready jobs during his campaign too?......but you can deny saddam was a terrorist, i dont... i feel if you put dynamite in someones chest pocket, and light it, and blow them up, or you gas a bunch of men women and children, your a terrorist.....and dont u remember abu graheb? they said that was a torture chamber big time b4 we took it over...so if were called terrorists, then surely they must be.....also, ive heartd bush called a wmd, so i guess its fair to say saddam was too, making him a wmd in iraq by the way...along with the sarin gas.......so,by the way lefties, where are the jobs?

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#263 Feb 24, 2011
indy wrote:
<quoted text> ill stick with believing the guys who were there...and my own memories of what lead up to all this....and have u seen the video of all the big dems telling us, b4 bush, that saddam had wmd?...sickening that they lied.... i think you are misinformed also...so are u saying bush got al qeada to come to fight in iraq instead of concentrating on attacking us here in the us?... strange how that when we went into iraq, we didnt get hit here.... attacks were down, on avg, under bush, as opposed to clinton watch... but alot of my left pals dont count the start of the war against us...just noticed it after 9-11..9th attack on us?..alqeada declared war on us and clinton b4 bush.... its alqeadas fault, u blame who u want....and i know about all the haliburton connections and yada yada yada... yep no doubt, clinton,bush,obama all deal with haliburton.... well, maybe bush and the repubs and all the dems will gret nailed for lying to us about saddam and wmd....would you rather bet on the difference?... sorry bush deciamted much of alqeada? im not, i feel my military buddies did good, and they know more about it that you...unless of course you were there? maybe all the mil guys are lying....are you gonna tell me also that obama didnt promise shovel ready jobs during his campaign too?......but you can deny saddam was a terrorist, i dont... i feel if you put dynamite in someones chest pocket, and light it, and blow them up, or you gas a bunch of men women and children, your a terrorist.....and dont u remember abu graheb? they said that was a torture chamber big time b4 we took it over...so if were called terrorists, then surely they must be.....also, ive heartd bush called a wmd, so i guess its fair to say saddam was too, making him a wmd in iraq by the way...along with the sarin gas.......so,by the way lefties, where are the jobs?
Since the first trade tower attack took place 36 days after Clinton took office I would say that Al Qeada was already at war with us. The fact is that Al Qeada was a direct result of the first Gulf War under Bush. Clinton tried to warn Bush that Al Qeada was the number one threat to our nation but Bush waived him off. Under Clinton, Hussein refused to let weapons inspectors do their job. Because of that Clinton pushed for stronger sanctions against him. That is what all the Democratic speeches that the Right have now taken out of context were about. Under Bush those inspectors were allowed back in and they found NOTHING. So Bush then made up stories about hidden weapons and mobile chemical labs. In Rumsfeld new book he even admits they had no evidence of WMD.
indy

Mansfield, MA

#264 Feb 24, 2011
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Since the first trade tower attack took place 36 days after Clinton took office I would say that Al Qeada was already at war with us. The fact is that Al Qeada was a direct result of the first Gulf War under Bush. Clinton tried to warn Bush that Al Qeada was the number one threat to our nation but Bush waived him off. Under Clinton, Hussein refused to let weapons inspectors do their job. Because of that Clinton pushed for stronger sanctions against him. That is what all the Democratic speeches that the Right have now taken out of context were about. Under Bush those inspectors were allowed back in and they found NOTHING. So Bush then made up stories about hidden weapons and mobile chemical labs. In Rumsfeld new book he even admits they had no evidence of WMD.
....lol on clinton warning us...why didnt he do anything? i feel the 1st wtc was an act of war too, just like ollie north warned us of yrs ago, but they officially declared war on clinton after that....as far as out of context, why is it when a dem is on video speaking, in full length, in thier
own words, its called out of context...nuts, but funny,sad..... i watched it, i listened to what the dems said, i didnt even know who bush was till after i knew who alqeada was,and bush said the same as the dems, no doubt...so are you saying the dems purposely mislead our former prez?... i doubt youll do this, but go to youtube and look up "dems on wmd"....unless theyre all those fox actors look-alikes the left tells us about.......maybe that was a moveon actor who pretended to be bush saying mission accomplished then?... thats what the left sounds like to the rest of us...but they mean it......so, i still blame alqeada, you blame bush and powell..... funny, how the left never gets any crap about accusing a blackman like powell of lying to the un.....but we cant Q this admin....... so, how about those shovel ready jobs? is gitmo closed? if obama is illegally in iraq, why is he still there? oil maybe? and isnt obama just creating more terrorists by making them mad in afgh and iraq?... yep, the old anti bush slogans still apply here dont they......? how about this fav...regime change starts at home..... and thanx to any lib who rates me nuts...its a compliment, when nuts on the left do that, they are mucho nuts in many cases....
indy

Mansfield, MA

#265 Feb 24, 2011
swampmudd wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry but the Republicans aborted all most jobs before they were ever born with their endless filibusters. The Republicans ran in 2010 promising to create more jobs. Since taking control of the House they have tried to repeal or de-fund every Democratic bill that creates private sector jobs and keep demanding public sector layoffs. Not only are they doing the exact opposite of what they promised during the campaign they are also again trying to push every social issue through that the American public has repeatedly rejected over the last fifty years.
....nafta was clintons.... the dems are in power, had total power for a while, they promised jobs, shovel ready, where are the jobs the DEMS promised? but bush should have repealed clintons nafta,cafta....its good when the right defunds wasteful idiotic bills with surprizes in them.... obamacare will go too i hope
Roger Edgar

Long Beach, CA

#266 Feb 24, 2011
true wrote:
<quoted text>
They do in china india and mexihole, but dont worry 90% of your lordship obamas stimilus went over seas so im sure those kids still have jobs
Relax. No one who doesn't have their hand securely no their neighbors WALLET still supports Obama.

Americans aren't as stupid as the hard left wishes them to be.

Since: May 08

Deltona Fla

#267 Feb 24, 2011
indy wrote:
<quoted text>....nafta was clintons.... the dems are in power, had total power for a while, they promised jobs, shovel ready, where are the jobs the DEMS promised? but bush should have repealed clintons nafta,cafta....its good when the right defunds wasteful idiotic bills with surprizes in them.... obamacare will go too i hope
NAFTA was 95% HW Bush, 5% Clinton. It also had widespread support at the time on the left and the Right. About the only ones who were against it was the Labor Unions, which may have been the reason so many on the knee jerk off Right were for it. But you really don't care about any of that. You don't even care about NAFTA. All NAFTA is to you is something you can try to blame on Democrats. To you it is a buzz word, a boogey man, a spin you have become versed at. But of course you try to blame everything on Democrats anyway. You don't give a ratsass about actually trying to get rid of NAFTA. It is all about rhetoric with you. You don't care anything about substance. That is why you keep voting for the people who want to extend NAFTA and other trade agreements.

“wwwIII”

Since: Jul 07

Sonora, CA

#268 Aug 5, 2011
Republicans blocked every recovery legislation they could. Anything to tank this economy to beat Obama in 2012.
If they had worked across the isle as they were elected to do we would be out of this recession by now.
http://the-democratic-republican.blogspot.com...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tom Price Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump victory sets off a tsunami of lobbying ac... 1 hr davy 11
News Trump selects Rep. Tom Price to lead Department... Dec 3 Trumpsnutsinyoface 122
News Trump picks Price as HHS secretary; Democrats b... Nov 30 AmericanWoman 6
News Trump summons Romney for 2nd look as staffers s... Nov 30 Your Ex 3
News Trump tapping Washington, Wall Street veterans ... Nov 29 Drama King 1
News Tea party fear: Will new House leaders be diffe... (Sep '15) Nov '16 Tea bag suicide news 7
News House Republican doctors: 'Obamacare is collaps... Oct '16 Wildchild 1
More from around the web