Obama Isn't That Bad

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have to say that Obama has gotten a lot done despite all the bickering between parties. He entered the Oval Office in “emergency mode”. Gov’t had to solve several huge problems at the same time. That is not the time to reform the system. Work within the system to stop the bleeding, get the country moving again, THEN start reforming the system. I think they were so concerned with fixing the problems at that time, they didn’t really care how they got it done.

Is that bad? Depends. If he’d prevaricated about anything, would the economy have gotten worse or better? Would the DOW have plummeted even farther? Would unemployment be 15%? He needed to act, and act NOW. I think (hope) that now that things are stabilizing that he and gov’t can concentrate on governing instead of emergency clean up. [/quote]

What you said is exactly the line every Republican would be toeing if Bush walked into the same mess that Obama did. bbbbut…but wait he had all of this to clean up and hasn’t even had a chance to start governing. Of course no self-respecting message board poster will admit this or any alluding to the fact that the same song would be sung regardless because of course THEIR party (whichever tea, repub, dem) is the only one that is right.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. But anyway…

Would you have rather had him ignore the economy and the auto industry and the banking system and jump into his campaign agenda? I think that any person who was elected POTUS in 2008 would have had to say “screw my agenda, we’re in emergency mode, let’s fix these immediate problems”. Sure, things got missed, TARP could have been regulated better, blah blah blah, but taking office and doing NOTHING would have been criminal.

62

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have to say that Obama has gotten a lot done despite all the bickering between parties. He entered the Oval Office in “emergency mode”. Gov’t had to solve several huge problems at the same time. That is not the time to reform the system. Work within the system to stop the bleeding, get the country moving again, THEN start reforming the system. I think they were so concerned with fixing the problems at that time, they didn’t really care how they got it done.

Is that bad? Depends. If he’d prevaricated about anything, would the economy have gotten worse or better? Would the DOW have plummeted even farther? Would unemployment be 15%? He needed to act, and act NOW. I think (hope) that now that things are stabilizing that he and gov’t can concentrate on governing instead of emergency clean up. [/quote]

What you said is exactly the line every Republican would be toeing if Bush walked into the same mess that Obama did. bbbbut…but wait he had all of this to clean up and hasn’t even had a chance to start governing. Of course no self-respecting message board poster will admit this or any alluding to the fact that the same song would be sung regardless because of course THEIR party (whichever tea, repub, dem) is the only one that is right.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. But anyway…

Would you have rather had him ignore the economy and the auto industry and the banking system and jump into his campaign agenda? I think that any person who was elected POTUS in 2008 would have had to say “screw my agenda, we’re in emergency mode, let’s fix these immediate problems”. Sure, things got missed, TARP could have been regulated better, blah blah blah, but taking office and doing NOTHING would have been criminal. [/quote]

No, that would have been constitutional.

Criminal is what he did.

63

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have to say that Obama has gotten a lot done despite all the bickering between parties. He entered the Oval Office in “emergency mode”. Gov’t had to solve several huge problems at the same time. That is not the time to reform the system. Work within the system to stop the bleeding, get the country moving again, THEN start reforming the system. I think they were so concerned with fixing the problems at that time, they didn’t really care how they got it done.

Is that bad? Depends. If he’d prevaricated about anything, would the economy have gotten worse or better? Would the DOW have plummeted even farther? Would unemployment be 15%? He needed to act, and act NOW. I think (hope) that now that things are stabilizing that he and gov’t can concentrate on governing instead of emergency clean up. [/quote]

What you said is exactly the line every Republican would be toeing if Bush walked into the same mess that Obama did. bbbbut…but wait he had all of this to clean up and hasn’t even had a chance to start governing. Of course no self-respecting message board poster will admit this or any alluding to the fact that the same song would be sung regardless because of course THEIR party (whichever tea, repub, dem) is the only one that is right.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. But anyway…

Would you have rather had him ignore the economy and the auto industry and the banking system and jump into his campaign agenda? I think that any person who was elected POTUS in 2008 would have had to say “screw my agenda, we’re in emergency mode, let’s fix these immediate problems”. Sure, things got missed, TARP could have been regulated better, blah blah blah, but taking office and doing NOTHING would have been criminal. [/quote]

Nah I’m basically agreeing with you (although not much of an Obama fan) either way the time is too short to see how the economy would correct under either side but both will point the finger at the other and we the people will take the brunt of it.

64

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
I have to say that Obama has gotten a lot done despite all the bickering between parties. He entered the Oval Office in “emergency mode”. Gov’t had to solve several huge problems at the same time. That is not the time to reform the system. Work within the system to stop the bleeding, get the country moving again, THEN start reforming the system. I think they were so concerned with fixing the problems at that time, they didn’t really care how they got it done.

Is that bad? Depends. If he’d prevaricated about anything, would the economy have gotten worse or better? Would the DOW have plummeted even farther? Would unemployment be 15%? He needed to act, and act NOW. I think (hope) that now that things are stabilizing that he and gov’t can concentrate on governing instead of emergency clean up. [/quote]

What you said is exactly the line every Republican would be toeing if Bush walked into the same mess that Obama did. bbbbut…but wait he had all of this to clean up and hasn’t even had a chance to start governing. Of course no self-respecting message board poster will admit this or any alluding to the fact that the same song would be sung regardless because of course THEIR party (whichever tea, repub, dem) is the only one that is right.[/quote]

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not. But anyway…

Would you have rather had him ignore the economy and the auto industry and the banking system and jump into his campaign agenda? I think that any person who was elected POTUS in 2008 would have had to say “screw my agenda, we’re in emergency mode, let’s fix these immediate problems”. Sure, things got missed, TARP could have been regulated better, blah blah blah, but taking office and doing NOTHING would have been criminal. [/quote]

Nah I’m basically agreeing with you (although not much of an Obama fan) either way the time is too short to see how the economy would correct under either side but both will point the finger at the other and we the people will take the brunt of it.[/quote]

Oh okay. Yeah, I agree with you on the blaming part.

65

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
And if you can’t see a difference in the two parties then you are blind.
[/quote]

Oh…I see a HUGE difference in the two parties, Zeb…

The Republicans are absolutely BRILLIANT politicians.

The DEMS STILL don’t know what hit them.

Mufasa[/quote]

I have to take you to school so that you can see the difference:

Let’s start with tax reduction. Who was the last democratic President that wanted to lower taxes? Now tell me how many republican Presidents out of the past 5 didn’t lower taxes.

I hope you get a 100% on your exam :slight_smile:

66

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Rock:

IF you are calling the Tea Party a “New” Party…I’ll have to disagree with you on this one…because it would have to be in name only.

At best it has functioned as a “Wing” or “Caucus” of the Republican Party (whom, by the way, executed this election with absolute brilliance).

Rand Paul has already suggested as much. (Forming an official “caucus” to keep the “Republican Establishment” in check.

Mufasa[/quote]

The Tea party is not a wing of the republicans. What we did was put real conservatives in the R nomination where we could. We understand that trying to be a third party would be useless. We agree with the R platform, so we just tried to find GOOD people to fill that spot.

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
zeb

Please provide a statistic that 90% of all abortions are for birth control in the USA. I would quite like to see this.
As for my view I believe the current UK government rule that abortions should be allowed up to 24 weeks then only if there is severe risk to the mother or the child will have no quality of life (i.e. will die very soon after being born) is the way forward[/quote]

It’s the way forward if you don’t care that a helpless little baby torn from the womb of its mother feels any pain. Nice huh?

About 1% of all abortions are for rape or incest. That leaves 99% for some other reason. Now what do you think that reason is? Could it be that the woman didn’t follow proper birth control
procedures?

Here are some stats for you, you do the math:

40% of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion

66% of all abortions are from women who have never been married

and there are more facts on www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

A woman has a right to say no to sex or to use a contraceptive device. But there is always that fall back positon just in case something goes wrong - ABORTION. It would be against human nature to believe that people don’t think that way and the facts bare that out.

I don’t see you answering his first question, if the information is supposedly there, then provide it, it’s not hard.

Also: “we will choose who leads it”. Think about that for a second, then think about who is President. Then think about the vitriol you spew for this man you (the majority of voters) chose to lead you.

68

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

Did the left not want to use tax payer money to fund abortions? It looks like they do want to kill people with tax money, but instead of killing terrorists that want to kill us, they want to kill a helpless baby.[/quote]

I always found irony in the fact that the left never had a problem with killing the unborn but many would protest when some scum back rapist murderer was about to get the electric chair. They really are a twisted bunch.

But then again I don’t get a lot of things the left thinks makes sense - I call it liberal logic.

-Raising taxes and giving the money to those who don’t work?

-Killing the unborn?

-Taking guns from law abiding citizens? You know all of us average Americans cling to our guns and our bibles, or so Obama says.

-Bigger government that takes more rights away from you with every new program?

From the bottom of my heart I do not understand how any thinking human being would possible want to live this way. Does anyone really think any of these things are what made this country the most powerful richest country in the history of the world? If so think again!

[/quote]

I - really - don’t want to get dragged into a clusterfuck of an abortion thread. All I’m going to say is that if you banned abortion, abortions would still take place but they would be backstreet and they would be riskier and women would die. That’s the reality of it.

In addition I would have much more sympathy for supporters of banning abortion if they advocated welfare but at the moment what you’re saying is the women must carry the child (even in rape or incest as some Tea Party people are saying) and then gets no support. Nice

As for ‘bowing’ I don’t know what would constitute a ‘strong’ American persident someone who shits on Merkel’s face and gives a white flag to Sarkozy as a gift I suppose but over here in commie Europe Obama is just another US president upholding US political military corporate and financial interests. People don’t laugh about the US anymore like they did when Bush was in power; they dislike, but respect Obama from my experience. And you have to hold the Saudi prince’s hand because they have your country by the bollocks. We have to do the same with Russia. Not pleasant at all but necessary[/quote]

Whether you agree or not abortion is murder. Think like this, To kill someone basiclly means to make thier heart stop beating. you can heqar a heart beat at 4-6 weeks, so after that it is murdur. most people think in cases of rape abortion is acceptable. If you get raped you should get checked in 2-3 weeks to see and if you can live with your self have it done. There is no reason to kill a baby because you could not pull out.

69

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

-Failure to send troops over seas in a speedy manor after being begged by his top General to do so. [/quote]

People would have criticized him for acting rashly
[/quote]
[/quote]

This manner of thinking is what is wrong with American politics. Oh no people would have criticized! Criticized!

If your top General begs for troops…drop everything else and determine whether you should. Take a day out to see if the General is being honest and if there are troops to spare. If so then send the troops.

70

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

This could not be said any better. People don’t understand that these are not people who are honestly interested in improving the country and fixing shit. Many stuff their pockets, and offer their allegiance to the highest bidder.

All you American taxpayers, just SHUT THE FUCK UP, work, and pay your taxes. That is what they want. Don’t whine, don’t complain (or you are a racist xenophobe.) Just shut up and contribute with your taxes to the spending beast or the black hole. [/quote]

Max:

If you are saying that this is true for both the GOP AND Dems…then I’m with you.

Mufasa
[/quote]

I think both parties are full of shit personally, because where I live, we have Republicans who voted to increase taxes and passed Global Warming initiatives. Dems and Repubs are a mixed bunch here, but if you are talking about how they would typical vote, I would side with Repubs.

I don’t want my tax money increased for shit, seriously, stay the fuck away, I don’t even want the government to get a foothold with it. Because they will always increase them. Trust me, TRUST ME, if you saw the shit that happens in California up close and personal, you would think Al Capone or John Gotti was governor.

71

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
The Tea party is not a wing of the republicans. What we did was put real conservatives in the R nomination where we could. We understand that trying to be a third party would be useless. We agree with the R platform, so we just tried to find GOOD people to fill that spot.
[/quote]

Sorry, T…not buying it.

I know there are a lot of Americans who want yesterday to be all about muskets, Bunker Hill, Old GLory and Apple Pie…but my cynicism for Politicians sees instead a two-year plan, executed by Republican Strategist, with precision.

And I’ll say it again…it was brilliant!

And while they were floundering and going nowhere with their “Just Say No” strategy…they were literally delivered a Christmas present in the “Tea Party”.

Since I can tell you right now that the Federal Government will not make any MEANINGFUL reforms either now…in January…in 2013…or for a few years to come…I’ll see if the “Tea Party” remains as fervent in its rallies and in holding Government accountable.

Something tells me that they won’t…but we’ll see.

Mufasa

72

Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse

73

[quote]phaethon wrote:

This manner of thinking is what is wrong with American politics. Oh no people would have criticized! Criticized!

If your top General begs for troops…drop everything else and determine whether you should. Take a day out to see if the General is being honest and if there are troops to spare. If so then send the troops.[/quote]

I’m in the middle of “Obama’s Wars” by Woodward now. If you’re interested in how the troop decisions were made, you might enjoy the book.

74

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I don’t see you answering his first question, if the information is supposedly there, then provide it, it’s not hard.[/quote]

Ha ha, are you his lawyer? Whatever he’s paying you it’s too much. I’ve answered the question. If you can’t see it then maybe you need some help yourself.

You need to pay attention Mak you’re slipping, not that you had far to fall. If I am part of the “we” then I have a say in who is running this country (unlike certain others). Therefore, I am able to criticize by virtue of being an American.

By the way lately you’re coming off as a mean spirited overly sensitive dullard. And I was just wondering why you’re showing your true self all of a sudden? Surely there are more cartoons you can post, more seemingly meaningful (but not quite) comments that you can ad.

Guess not.

75

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse[/quote]

Yes, the Tea Party is one big trojan horse that’s why millions of dollars were spent in elections BY REPUBLICANS to beat them in the primaries. AND that’s why some republicans even stayed in the race when defeated in their primary by a Tea Party candidate.

Please tell me that you’re 19 years old in college and just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I don’t want to think that you’re a working adult with a family and some real responsibilities.

76

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse[/quote]

I second what Zeb siad. There were a few races where the Tea party candidate beat the R nominee in the primary, and the R still ran as an indipendant. Why would that be if we were a trojan horse, alsoI doubt someone from Scotland would have a good grasp on what goes on over here.

77

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse[/quote]

I second what Zeb siad. There were a few races where the Tea party candidate beat the R nominee in the primary, and the R still ran as an indipendant. Why would that be if we were a trojan horse, alsoI doubt someone from Scotland would have a good grasp on what goes on over here. [/quote]

If they are indeed a separate party, how do you see them working together with republicans in congress? Not that I think they’ll ever get a significant foothold. But for the time being, what will they be able to accomplish on a national level? I have a hard time believing that a tea partier will be able to propose legislation and get enough people on board to get it through. Either they assimilate with the other republicans or…what?

78

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse[/quote]

I second what Zeb siad. There were a few races where the Tea party candidate beat the R nominee in the primary, and the R still ran as an indipendant. Why would that be if we were a trojan horse, alsoI doubt someone from Scotland would have a good grasp on what goes on over here. [/quote]

If they are indeed a separate party, how do you see them working together with republicans in congress? Not that I think they’ll ever get a significant foothold. But for the time being, what will they be able to accomplish on a national level? I have a hard time believing that a tea partier will be able to propose legislation and get enough people on board to get it through. Either they assimilate with the other republicans or…what?[/quote]

The Tea party is not a political party, as much as it is an idea. The reason we call it tea party is because of the Boston tea party. They were taxed and got tired of it, just like us. We simply just educate people about different politictions so they can make a better choice. There are Tea party backed guys running under the R because they won the primary over who the R’s really wanted. We infused candidates into the R’s just like progressives infused into the D’s. We are simply just a group of like minded people who want to put the country back on track to fiscal responsibility. Will we see an actuall Tea party party in the future? Who knows?

79

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse[/quote]

I second what Zeb siad. There were a few races where the Tea party candidate beat the R nominee in the primary, and the R still ran as an indipendant. Why would that be if we were a trojan horse, alsoI doubt someone from Scotland would have a good grasp on what goes on over here. [/quote]

If they are indeed a separate party, how do you see them working together with republicans in congress? Not that I think they’ll ever get a significant foothold. But for the time being, what will they be able to accomplish on a national level? I have a hard time believing that a tea partier will be able to propose legislation and get enough people on board to get it through. Either they assimilate with the other republicans or…what?[/quote]

The Tea party is not a political party, as much as it is an idea. The reason we call it tea party is because of the Boston tea party. They were taxed and got tired of it, just like us. We simply just educate people about different politictions so they can make a better choice. There are Tea party backed guys running under the R because they won the primary over who the R’s really wanted. We infused candidates into the R’s just like progressives infused into the D’s. We are simply just a group of like minded people who want to put the country back on track to fiscal responsibility. Will we see an actuall Tea party party in the future? Who knows?
[/quote]

Sounds like a pamphlet. Seems like an oversimplification too. I don’t buy that you’re simply educating people about better politicians. They are different politicians. If it were the case that they were “better” republicans, they would still just be republicans. There is definitely a fundamental difference, and I wonder how it’s going to play out in congress. To me, they’re the green party of the right, but with better politics.

80

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]siouxperman wrote:

[quote]SUPER-T wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Here are the funders of the Tea Party

Mufasa I agree with you the Republicans are very smart, very savvy. This whole Tea Party has been one big Trojan Horse[/quote]

I second what Zeb siad. There were a few races where the Tea party candidate beat the R nominee in the primary, and the R still ran as an indipendant. Why would that be if we were a trojan horse, alsoI doubt someone from Scotland would have a good grasp on what goes on over here. [/quote]

If they are indeed a separate party, how do you see them working together with republicans in congress? Not that I think they’ll ever get a significant foothold. But for the time being, what will they be able to accomplish on a national level? I have a hard time believing that a tea partier will be able to propose legislation and get enough people on board to get it through. Either they assimilate with the other republicans or…what?[/quote]

The Tea party is not a political party, as much as it is an idea. The reason we call it tea party is because of the Boston tea party. They were taxed and got tired of it, just like us. We simply just educate people about different politictions so they can make a better choice. There are Tea party backed guys running under the R because they won the primary over who the R’s really wanted. We infused candidates into the R’s just like progressives infused into the D’s. We are simply just a group of like minded people who want to put the country back on track to fiscal responsibility. Will we see an actuall Tea party party in the future? Who knows?
[/quote]

Sounds like a pamphlet. Seems like an oversimplification too. I don’t buy that you’re simply educating people about better politicians. They are different politicians. If it were the case that they were “better” republicans, they would still just be republicans. There is definitely a fundamental difference, and I wonder how it’s going to play out in congress. To me, they’re the green party of the right, but with better politics.[/quote]

I did not say BETTER politicians, I said different. We even invited all the democrats in out elections to come speak, but none did. You are right that it is overly simple, that may be why some do not understand it. Politics and learning about politics is not hard. People like to think that it is. We also encourage people to vote, let people know that if they are unhappy with the govt there are ways to go about being heard. The green party is just another progressive ideology. I am interested to see how it will work in congress also.