I placed up a poll recently of whether or not you will vote for Obama in 2012. Half say they will and the other half say they won't. Out of the folks who say they will, no one believes Obama is the best President and only a few believe he has done a "great" job. On the other hand, the majority of people who said they wont vote for Obama stated that he is the worst President in their lifetime.

So, I might ask the people who voted for Obama, what makes you keep the faith? Lets say, for example, there were two Democrats and one Republican for President. Would you vote for Obama or the other Democrat that is running?

Im just curious because the Obama Presidency seems to have a lot of controversy and is obviously less then stellar.

Anyone you don't like gets my vote, buttmunch.

I am voting for Charlie Sheen. You're either in Sheen's-Korner or you're with the trolls.

Insosfar as buttmunch's poll goes:
Obama . . . winner

Actually, since buttmunch asked a pseudo-serious question, I'll answer at least part of it seriously.

The reason I'm not in the group that says Obama is the worst President in their lifetime, is because I'm not a racist. I understand disagreeing with his policies--e.g., believing it is not the place of government to prop up failing banks or auto companies, and therefore believing it is preferable to have 13 or 14 percent official unemployment rates (but avoiding government intervention as a matter of principle) than have the significantly lesser rates that his policies have brought us--but to say so confidently he is the worst President smacks of racism IMHO. Yeah, some of you guys who believe this may not go around using the "N" word every other minute (but I suspect others do) but to make this sort of extreme statement--that after about two years in office (in many cases much earlier than this), and after having inherited some of the worst problems this country has ever faced--you believe he is the worst President in your lifetime, in most instances smacks of an underbelly of racism.

And before some of you get your panties in a bunch over what I just stated, ask yourself on what basis do a majority of Republicans (or close to that) believe Obama is not even an American citizen? There is not a scintilla of evidence to support this bizarre but very prevalent view. You really think if he were white he would be subject to this abuse?


(Message edited by laguy on March 08, 2011)

Obama is NOT a great president, but he looks pretty damned good when you compare him to COMPLETE LOSERS like:

(1) John McCain & Sarah Bimbo;
(2) George W Bush & Darth Cheney;
(3) George Herbert Walker Bush and Dan Potato Head;
(4) Ronald and Nancy Reagan (his veep was irrelavant);
(5) Richard Nixon & Spiro T. Agnew;
(6) Wannabees like:
(6.1) Newt Gangreen;
(6.2) Micheal Hucksterbee;
(6.3) Michelle Bachman (but I would fuck her);
(6.4) Scott Walker (and all the other Koch brother butt lickers);

Face it ButtMunch, republicans have destroyed our nation and handed Obama a fucked up bankrupt plate of crap.

I think that Kenyan fellow has done a pretty good job in righting a few of the great injustices and preventing a total collapse despite every treasonous republican effort to make America fail on his watch.

(Message edited by Hot4ass2 on March 08, 2011)

Guy is about to get us into a 3rd war. He is nuts. He does not realize we cannot fix things.

I cannot think of any place we have left better off after going in.

MM

Interesting MM. Assuming you are talking about Libya (actually it is difficult to know what you are talking about), you really think having his Secretary of State announce any imposition of a "no-fly" zone would have to have international support and would not be led by the U.S. makes Obama "nuts"?

Interesting also that you think Germany was better off under Hitler than after we "went in" and same for Japan. South Korea also isn't doing too badly these days. And one would be hard-pressed to make the case Kuwait would have been better off under Saddam Hussein, which without the U.S. intervention would have been the case.

And although I am not an expert on this one (and therefore may be wrong) Bosnia and Herzegovina seems to have benefitted from our involvement and is better off now than before we got involved there, militarily (although under the auspices of NATO) and diplomatically. Add to this Panama (was it really better off before we removed Noriega?) and I'm sure there are others.

Lastly, as to Iraq, it is not really clear whether they are better off now or before Bush's war. What is clear is whatever marginal benefits might have accrued to the Iraqi people as a whole was not worth the American lives and treasure that was spent. Nor was making Iran the premier regional power (which is what Bush's war did) a very smart thing to do. But certainly that doesn't make Obama, who opposed that war, nuts.

I agree with most of Laguy's examples, however, as of late our 'victories' haven't really accomplished the desired results.

(Message edited by copperfieldkid on March 09, 2011)

In a nutshell:

Afghanistan was a good war because it was a direct attack on those responsible for 9/11 and lot of terrorism around the world. A direct attack on Al-Queda and the Taliban who gave them safe haven. Unfortunately, this war was not deemed the right one by the neocons, so we bailed out early before finishing the job. Thus, having to re-engage in higher numbers and with higher casualties several years after the job should have been done. It's now a bad war since we're propping up an unstable, un-democratic, corrupt regime of thieves.

Iraq was a bad war from the start since we invaded under false pretenses a country that did not support terrorism and was no threat to our interests at all. It's worse now since it's a failed state and after a trillion dollars and who knows how many more hundreds of billions to go, we don't control the country, oil is twice as high as before we started, and instead of a single strong dictator it will most likely become a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

Libya would be a decently good war since 1) we would be taking out a direct threat since Qadaffi has supported terrorism for decades, and 2) we would be supporting what is generally considered a "good" rebel force. Libya also is pumping lots of oil and is only an hour or so away from long-established bases in Sicily and Malta. Thus, easier to support than the desert, very close to Europe and infrastructure, with most of the population and infrastructure right on the coast.

However, since we're tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's only so much we can do in Libya. And, since we've wasted trillions on the bad Bush wars while he was cutting taxes on the rich, we don't really have the money to support a "good" war.

Portege,

I think your question is not right because it is hard for many to know until they know who Obama's opponent will be. For example, the straw polls have already proved that Obama kills Sarah Palin. Sorry to break the news to you. Others Republicans are much tighter but at this point in time, no one beats Obama hands down.

Have you forgotten that Bush left office with an approval rating of less than 20%? Obama is no where near that number, and no other president in my life time has had such an abysmal approval rating.

How about we make a bet? I know that you don't like Obama, so let's bet that Obama's approval rating gets worse than Bush's. It is a simple objective measurement and clearly allows you to put your money where your mouth is. I will even give you odds, let's say 2:1. How much you want to bet?

Well, I will not say whether Iraq was a good or bad war,but I would ask these ?'s

1. Was Adam Hussain worth $100,000 - $200,000 dead Iraqi's?

If you can say it was, I don't care what your politics are, but I would say that it would be interesting for you to explain your moral values.

2. Even if moral issues are not the question, was it worth the cost in dollars?

When we mortgage our future to the Chinese to pay for a way, I would say the Chinese have already won the next war.

3. So you think we will win in Afghanistan,are you blind to history?

The Greeks, Romans, British,and Romans never won in Afghanistan. Eventually, they all gave up and left.

We have been there almost 10 yrs now.

I would suggest if after being there 10 years, and you thing we are stillgoing to win, that you would buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me also.

I am not sure that the god g8ys always win.

MM

I keep hearing about how we have to get out of Afghanistan because there is no clear path to "winning the war." I should say at the outset I have no fucking idea what we should do in Afghanistan other than roll back the clock and have Bush fight the war like he really meant it, rather than using it as a prelude to the Iraq War. But one thing I do know, is whatever we do--remain fighting in Afghanistan or withdrawing--should not be determined by answers to the simple-minded question "can we win the war, and if so, when?"

The important question isn't winning the war, it is what happens if we don't continue fighting the war and withdraw precipitously. The worst case scenario (the likelihood of which is very difficult for us civilians to assess) is the Taliban takes over, allows Al Qaeda safe sanctuary and support, which eventually results in a nuclear attack on the U.S. (along with numerous public executions in soccer stadiums, no rights for women, and so forth). If one were to accept this as a real possibility, a war of attrition that at least prevents this during the interim is probably worth fighting, even if there is no clear path to "winning the war." To be fair, I suspect the chance of a nuclear attack from a Taliban supported Al Qaeda is rather low, and I don't really know whether the Taliban would even offer Al Qaeda or other similarly-minded groups sanctuary, but what I just presented was meant literally as a worst case scenario, not the most likely outcome.

Also the example I just gave doesn't take into account that to the extent our forces are in Afghanistan our ability to deploy them in other Al Qaeda sanctuaries, or potential sanctuaries, is diminished, and so forth. But what the example does illustrate is fighting to maintain the status quo rather than to win (where winning may not be possible) might in some instances have merit even where the status quo is not good at all.

Because I don't have a good sense of what would happen if we leave Afghanistan versus if we stay, I really don't know what we should do. But I do know asking the question "when will we win the war" doesn't provide much of an answer.

MajorMajor you said Romans Romans twice twice..

He obviously works at the Department of Redundancy Department.

. . . or based on the number of typos is PWD (posting while drunk).

....Sarah Bimbo is THE scariest option of all. It would bring out all those nut case voters that put more value on comments about mama grizzlies, hockey moms, and other folksy phrases over those of an intelligent and well educated man like Obama.

I would definitely vote for Obama - The Republican's have lost their message and too much infighting with the tea party extremists!

The only thing the Republican's stand for today is "No". Even if Obama came up with the best idea in the world to create jobs, public policy, or whatever, the republicans would want to sink it! At this point it is in the Republican's best interest that job losses continue and social safety nets are removed, increasing public frustrations with the democrats.

Obama has an impossible job - blame the republicans!!! The 'No' party! Vote them out instead. I also vote to pull the plug on Fox News!

Let's be serious here. Let's say you were interviewing for a corporate president position, would you consider a guy from the mailroom? Obama did not have the experience to be president during good economic times and certainly didn't have the experience to guide the country through the current downturn. This is neither a comment on him as a person, nor his intelligence.

Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket as a last ditch effort to garner the female vote. Unfortunately, they weren't able to add her the night before the election so she actually had to open her mouth. Why she or anyone else thinks she is a credible candidate for anything is beyond me.

It would be great for once to have a person like Mitt Romney who actually is qualified elected. Last time the media sabotaged his campaign by blowing out of proportion a story about a cult in Texas involving underage girls and linking it to Mormons.

One would be hard-pressed to argue John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush had significantly more job-related experience than Obama before becoming President. Some of them succeeded as President, others did not. In fact, the President whose experience-level (and types of experience) was closest to Obama's was Clinton (I'll take, however, Senate experience over small-state governor experience anytime if the issue is competence to deal with Washington); the vast majority of Americans (probably not so-called Exectalent) consider Clinton a successful and competent President.

As to the "mailroom" analogy, I'm surprised Exectalent didn't go all the way and state "you wouldn't hire a cotton picker to manage a plantation." Of course, if he had made the same point about George W. Bush's lack of job-relevant experience (or Clinton's, Carter's or Kennedy's), I wouldn't raise this.

By the way, the primary reason Romney didn't get anywhere was because of his obnoxious personality; that he was Mormon also didn't help among his bigoted potential base of Southern Republicans.

I really "don't like or like" our President these days. I beleive since Klinton all the Presidents have been puppets. But I am curious what he has done to generate these words "an intelligent and well educated man like Obama"? And comparing him to Bush doesn't count. A monkey could win that comparision.

I don't particularly like Obama, but if the Republicans run Palin in 2012, I won't be voting for her. Her being a serious candidate is about as absurd as Carol Mosely Braun being a Senator.

I have no problem with Republicans being the "party of no." We'd be in a lot better fiscal shape if previous administrations/legislatures said "no" more often - no Iraq war, no prescription drug benefit, etc. Once you create an entitlement, it's virtually impossible to take away. Once you're in a war, it's difficult to extract yourself (at least w/o leaving a mess).

Obama the "worst ever" is ridiculous. He's been President 26 months. Give him a chance. I think a Democratic Prez with a Republican Congress can be a good combination. Hopefully, less adventurous foreign policy with a Congress that attempts to put the brakes on spending.

Graduated from Columbia University and then from Harvard Law School magna cum laude, where he served as President of the Harvard Law Review. I'm not quite sure what one is looking for if this is not considered "well-educated."

As for his intelligence, everyone has to form their own judgments. I'd suggest reading his first book (which was written by him long before he had the status to even consider using a ghost writer) as a way to appreciate his intelligence. One might also note he was offered a tenure-track position as an assistant or associate professor of law at one of the best and most exclusive law schools in the country (the University of Chicago; he chose to be a lecturer instead, since he wanted to do other things as well) so some of the most intelligent legal minds in the country certainly considered him intelligent. (for more info on his history, the Wikipedia bio of him seems fairly accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama).

I personally believe the way he carries himself as President also shows his intelligence, but there are others who obviously disagree with me on this.

..."I have no problem with Republicans being the "party of no." We'd be in a lot better fiscal shape if previous administrations/legislatures said "no" more often - no Iraq war, no prescription drug benefit".....keep in mind, this was brought upon by the Republican's themselves, not Obama. Later economic stimulus was the only option to save the US system from collapsing.

Obama inherited a mess from the republicans, i.e. Bush. The deficit was not caused by Obama, but rather Bush's ill advised tax cuts during the time of war and a costly war in Iraq....

You don't need to like Obama or support him, but I don't see there to be an argument made contrary to the fact that Obama is an intelligent and well educated man that has been put into an almost impossible position of power. How can he possibly succeed with the party of 'No'?

The only answer to any economic problems the Republican's seem to have is tax cuts and so called cuts to "entitlements". I still don't understand how anyone can feel that an industrialized nation like the US should not have some type of social safety net, like Social Security or Health Care. I guess if you are in a very good economic situation cutting these benefits sounds like a good idea, but it goes against any real sense of reality of what impacts the majority of American's.

The answer to our problems today would be for both parties to work together to resolve problems. Obama had to compromise on many things, now it is time for the Republican's to do the same. Put the American people first - not the Republican, Democrats, or Tea Party.

Cutting taxes and a basic safety net are not the magic bullets to solve everything!

I will give you my opinion. I think his priorities are misplaced.

Lets say you are given the job of Fire Chief and on your first day there is this huge out of control fire. What do you do first? Well, thats simple, you put all your efforts into putting out the fire that is in front of you. You stay at that fire until it is put out and done. What you do not do is go back to the firehouse to make dinner, go on a golf outing or any other task until the fire is put out...

When Obama came to office, he seemed to stabilize the banks and other companies, but he seemed to stop at that point. Once the banks were stabilized, he no longer paid attention to unemployment and may have in fact made it worse. The healthcare reform act did not encourage businesses to hire more people and it may have even made it more costly...so people are now paying a hidden tax which is increased healthcare premiums. Obama has only approved 1 oil drilling lease and cancelled about 74 other leases since he has been in office. Obviously, he has not encouraged employment in the energy industry which employs 9 million Americans and his actions did not make the price of gas cheaper. In prior recessions, Presidential administrations tried to encourage the economy by rolling back taxes and regulations. They made it easier for business to operate, but there is only more regulation and its obvious that Obama has not been too friendly to business.

So Obama did put out part of the fire and make it less intense, but the fire is still going and his best advice is to "just wait, it will get better". From day one in office, his main priority should have been jobs and getting the people who voted for him back to work. He has done some things, but he has not put out the fire and the fire still rages on in many areas of the United States.

Another big thing for me is that all the people who were responsible for the financial crisis were never investigated or prosecuted. They still have their jobs and collecting larger bonuses then before. During the Bush era, there were a few executives prosecuted i.e. Enron, Worldcomm, etc. To this day, I believe those guys are still serving time in a medium security prison alongside hard-core criminals. However, Obama invited all those guys to the White House for dinner. I think his administration could have found at least one guy to prosecute. I remember Enron and the Bush administration did whatever they could to make charges stick. Obama doesnt even look like he is trying.

Im not racist, not at all, but I choose to look at things honestly. Did Obama do all he could to bring back jobs? My answer is no and, in fact, I think many of his policies discouraged employment. I dont believe Obama has put his back into the true problems and, instead, chose to chase unpopular issues like healthcare. The people who voted for him have said time and time again the main issue is jobs, but Obama disagrees.

So I ask you...do you think Obama has made it easier for yourself, your friends, family and colleagues? Are you spending more money now in the way of taxes, insurance premiums, gas and other such items then you were 2 years ago?

(Message edited by Portege on March 11, 2011)

Lovingmarvin,
The imbalance between Government expenditures and revenues was brought about by many actors in both parties over many years. No doubt that George W contributed more than his fair share.

I most definitely don't share your view on government stimulus as the only way to stop the economy from collapsing at this point. Then again, I'm not very Keynesian. I think that stimulus measures (both fiscal and monetary) have diminishing effects the more they are applied. More importantly, I think excessive monetary stimulus creates financial bubbles that always end badly - whether in stocks, housing, or commodities. And given the political nature of our C. Bank, fiscal expansion will almost certainly be accompanied by monetary expansion.

Again, I'm quite happy for the Republicans in Congress to say "no" over the next couple years.
I'll re-think whom to vote for in 20 months.

"We'd be in a lot better fiscal shape if previous administrations/legislatures said "no" more often - no Iraq war, no prescription drug benefit, etc."

EGC,
Ummmmmmm, wasn't it the Republicans that gave us the Iraq war? That was BUsh, and it had nearly unanimous Republican support...less so from Dems. And the prescription drug benefit that has turned out to be a financial disaster? Bush, and almost unanimously supported by the Republicans.

The Republicans are the "Party of No" only in the sense of saying no to anything on the Democrats' policy agenda. They'll say no to anything they think might endear Obama to the electorate. They've said no to very little in the way of real fiscal discipline...offering phony budgets that have no chance of passing is not serious policymaking. They did say YES to major tax cuts that primarily benefited the very, very wealthy and helped deepen the country's financial mess.

I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama, apart from Bush, he is the most conservative president since Nixon. Unfortunately, as Bill Maher puts it "Democrats have moved to the right and the Right has moved into a mental hospital." I like to think what would happen if Obama gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, negotiated with terrorists, negotiated with the enemy without preconditions, raised taxes and decided to "cut and run" from the middle east. Republicans would explode in outrage ... forgetting that these were all things that Saint Ronald did.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll332.xml

Bwana
I think it's pretty clear from my posts that I don't regard the Republicans as the good guys. Didn't I specifically mention the Iraq war and prescription drug benefit as particularly egregious examples of fiscal recklessness?

On the "party of no" matter, let me analogize a bit. I liked Bill Clinton better than Newt Gingrich. However, I think the adversarial relationship between President Clinton and Congress from '94 on worked great for the country. And I think the same dynamic can exist today.

EGC,

Didn't mean to imply you're a fan of the Repubs or Bush...it's clear your not.

The tension that comes from divided power can produce good results, as it did to a degree during the Clinton years. But these new Tea Party nut jobs in the House are not in DC to govern or negotiate or seek any form of compromise. They are there to pursue some bizarre agenda that primarily is designed to blindly attack some fake and totally distorted vision of what government is and, in the process, bring Obama down. So unless Boehner figures out how to rein in the wing nuts in his party, I don't see the same dynamic working.

Wombat,

Saw a great clip on The Daily Show last night with St. Ronald stating that a country that bans unions and collective bargaining can't be considered a free country. The Reagan of the New Republican Party is a myth, whose positions bear little resemblance to those Reagan took (not to suggest I'm a fan).

"In prior recessions, Presidential administrations tried to encourage the economy by rolling back taxes . . ."

Why do the Obama haters always mischaracterize his actions to make their (fictional) points? For example, his proposal for the stimulus package, which the right-wing derides, consisted 40 percent of tax cuts, although the final bill included slightly less than that. He has also pushed other bills that included various tax cuts, not increases.

You right-wing guys might want to take your heads out of your asses and do some research before spreading such fictional crap about his tax policies and related economic matters. Then again for the Republican Party and their Tea Party masters, fiction has become the new norm, particularly insofar as their statements about Obama are concerned.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html

(Message edited by LAguy on March 12, 2011)

you ask "....So I ask you...do you think Obama has made it easier for yourself, your friends, family and colleagues? Are you spending more money now in the way of taxes, insurance premiums, gas and other such items then you were 2 years ago?"

The answer is that absolutely life is easier now then it was just one year ago! I have seen my own 401K that I have been putting money into for 20+ years bounce back, I have seen the large wave of layoffs stop in the corporation that I work with, I have seen a couple of good friends get jobs after being layed off more then a year ago, I finally feel safe putting money into the bank without worrying about it collapsing, seen real estate prices come down to a reasonable level once again, see more people (unfortunately not yet everyone) live within their means versus off credit credits or home credit line.

You ask about taxes, insurance premiums, gas and other such items - lets get real, oil prices are out of anyone's control. How can Obama (or any other american as a matter of fact) control people in the middle east rebelling against their dictator (Isn't this really what American is all about????), terrorist nut cases, etc, hence those events spiking the price of oil? I have not seen my taxes increase, not sure about you - so no issue here. Inflation is low, and overall consumer goods remain cheap.

Is it all rosy, of course not - we are recovering from a horrible recession. Some people will continue to suffer, while others are starting to get back on their feet. I have seen the latter more and more. Of course there is still more pain to come for some people as a result of the real estate bubble bursting, but is that of Obama's doing?? Most certainly not....

The problem is not Obama - it is the political parties solely basing their votes on party lines not of what is in the best interest of the American people. No matter what side of the fence you fall on, republican or Democrat, vote out anyone to far too the left or right. Lets vote for people that can work across party lines and compromise.

If the Republicans were to become a party of "maybe", instead of 'No', maybe I would support them again. 'Maybe' being lets at least try to find a common ground.

As far as the Tea Party? Again, I do not believe in anything extreme. Lets be realistic, we need taxes to keep government running, maintain and build infrastructure, and at least provide a basic safety net to its citizen.

"The answer is that absolutely life is easier now then it was just one year ago!"

The thing is that if you dont invest or trade in the stock market then you wouldnt be able to see that life is better off. Although large layoffs have stopped, hiring really hasnt started. Unemployment still is in the high 8s.

I use Rasmussen polls to look at the different factors. Consumer confidence is about the same as it was right after the 9/11 attacks:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/indexes/rasmussen_consumer_index/rasmussen_consumer_index

Congrats if you did well in the stock market and were able to keep your job. Congrats for your friends who found jobs. However, I know that millions of Americans are still feeling the pain.

While the federal income tax has not gone up, there have been several other taxes that have escalated. I noticed when I tried to book a flight a lot of the ticket consisted of government taxes. Obama does have control over drilling permits/leases and he has done nothing in that regard to encourage it. He cancelled 74 leases just as he came into office and has publicly stated his position against the oil industry. If he opened up many areas of the United States to drilling then that would create 3 million high quality jobs and help with the price of gasoline. Healthcare premiums have really spiked and seem out of control. Each year they seem to go up another double digit percentage. Consumer goods might be cheap according to the government's "CPI" figures or whatever you call it, but I can see prices going up at my local store.

I dont blame George Bush for anything. How can you blame one guy for all this? I remember the last 10 years there were plenty of folks trying to flip houses and buying houses that were way above their income level. I saw municipalities paying police officers and other government workers six figure salaries as a result of juicy union negotiated contracts. Who do I blame? I think we can start with the house flippers and real estate speculators which was probably a good percentage of Americans. We all knew that would eventually come to a magnificent end and it did.

I enjoy the word "No". The more government does, the more we spend, the more trouble we seem to get into. Sure, government needs to provide basic services and regulations as a "safety net", but it should not go beyond "basic". It seems like Obama wants to go way beyond the boundaries and involve itself in areas where the government has no business. Sure, everyone should have health insurance, but is it the government's role to make sure they have that? What if someone doesnt want it then should the government force them to have it? What else in the future will the government figure out that we need and require it? Maybe they might require everyone to have a cellphone one day too because everyone should have one?

The more government goes beyond basic services the more trouble and the more complex it gets. Once you start implementing all these policies then its nearly impossible to roll them back. Look at Greece as an example. It wasnt too long ago I turned on the television to see a riot policeman in Greece on fire. These crowds were not rioting over a lack of personal freedom, but because the government was rolling back benefits they had given to the citizens. The citizens in those countries felt these benefits were rights, but they were really nothing more then premium benefits that Greece could no longer afford. As the US gets more involved in things like healthcare, I see us becoming more and more like Greece or Ireland.

Again, congrats on your good fortune. I am happy you made it in the stock market and were able to keep your job, but thats not what a lot of Americans are feeling right now.

I was just reading this article:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wisconsin-labor-protesters-apf-3675874947.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

As you probably know, in Wisconsin they are fighting because of collective bargaining being rolled back for public employees. I support the rights of unions to an extent. I do support government workers having the right to go on a vacation, take breaks and not be dismissed from employment because of a simple disagreement. On the other hand, I do not support seeing government workers enjoy more benefits or greater salary then their private industry counterparts. i.e. the cop, toll booth worker or garbageman who makes more then the President of the United States or as much as some highly educated and skilled doctors.

This is a good example of how government meddling into certain situations can turn ugly. My opinion is they should have never passed the collective bargaining laws in regards to government workers in the first place. When you work in a coal mine, then you can see why collective bargaining is a good idea. However, the goverment worker is in a much different situation. I dont think they need collective bargaining or union involvement at all. Most government workplaces I have seen seem to be a different animal then private workplaces. Private workers having a union can be a neccesity at times, but public workers having it is more like a premium benefit then a basic right. How much more benefits do those guys need when they already have 30 days of vacation, six figure salaries and the most generous benefits package there is? What is it that they are fighting for exactly? The right to 45 days of vacation and earn more in retirement then what they get paid now??

This is how I feel it will end up going down the Obama road of change. We will see a lot more regulation and government meddling. Government will get itself involved in areas where it shouldnt be. Obama will give more entitlements out with no regard for the nations debt levels and eventually the bond market will take the United States out. Unions will be even more empowered then they already are. Business will continue its great escape to Mexico or Asia...big business are the biggest mongers of all as they are disgusted by whats here in the US versus what is over in the emerging markets.

Basically, the best thing the Republicans can do is say no. If they do negotiate, then we continue down that long road. Just say no to all of it because none of it is going to help us in the end.

You should really give some more backup on these tax increases. You've mentioned it twice now. You implied that everyone was paying more in taxes under Obama (although admitting that the federal income tax has not gone up-just could not allow yourself to say that they decreased I guess) and you also said that several other taxes have escalated with some reference to airfares (probably 9/11 related fees from almost a decade ago). If there really are some tax increases under Obama (hidden or otherwise), let us know about them. Please don't drag out the health insurance premium increase routine though without at least looking at how much they increased per year under Bush (hint: about 12% per year for me).

"How about we make a bet? I know that you don't like Obama, so let's bet that Obama's approval rating gets worse than Bush's."

Honestly, I dont believe that Obama's rating will fall much further. There seems to be a diehard Obama crowd that will not relent almost like those who bought that CSCO stock in the year 2000 and refuse to let go thinking it will go back to those lofty levels. Im not sure what it will take to sink Obama's approval rating further and convince the Obama-believers. Gas prices shooting up past 4 per gallon, socialized medicine (still waiting for those CSPAN healthcare negotiation videos that were promised by Obama), sweetheart deals with Wall St executives vs. perp walks, etc. There is a lot not to like about Obama.

Everyone will be putting their money where their mouth is when supporting Obama. When you hit the pumps, guess what? A little bit of that is caused by Obama and the Obamatorium on drilling which is still in effect unofficially. If you truly and honestly feel that Obama is making it better for us economically, then pull that lever. You are the one who is paying for all this and not Obama.

I honestly think we need a new man at the reigns. I really dont care if the new man is Democrat or Republican just so long as they are the best choice for America. Its not that I hate Obama or I am racist, its that I dont believe Obama is the best possible choice and I dont believe he has the experience or leadership skills for the position.

There is a lot not to like about Sarah Palin, but she does have more leadership skills and experience then Obama. Obama seems to be winging it at times and its obvious when he gets up and speaks.

"If there really are some tax increases under Obama (hidden or otherwise), let us know about them."

There is a lot of taxes out there besides federal income tax. I will get a list of them in the future, but I can name a bunch off the top of my head like the travelers taxes on airline tickets. Then there are fees that are not really taxes, but they are taxes anyway.

Also when you increase costs for businesses then they just hand it down to you. So Obama has increased costs through regulation and legislation like the healthcare reform act and the cost has been handed down to you.

Like I said, you are free to pull the lever for whoever you want and put your money where your mouth is. If you think its cheaper under Obama or know its not, but willing to pay, then be my guest and pull it in that booth or push the buttom or whatever you do.

"Then there are fees that are not really taxes, but they are taxes anyway."

Thanks for being so specific. I can see that these higher taxes are very important to you and you aren't just blindly generalizing. On your next Obama-crude production rant, can you do us a favor and compare US production under Obama to Bush and then sit and contemplate before typing anything? You might also want to get some Obama economic policy bashing ideas from the laughably timed WSJ article below:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

After Portege's months of stupid and inaccurate posts on ClubHombre, he now wants to have a political discussion. Great.

Again, I think he's a puppet. But for those of you who don't - here are 2 interesting articles I found this week.

"To whose agenda is President Obama being hitched? Writing in the English language version of the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, Stephen J. Sniegoski reports that leading figures of the neocon conspiracy--Richard Perle, Max Boot, David Brooks, and Mona Charen--are ecstatic over Obama’s appointments. They don’t see any difference between Obama and Bush/Cheney.

Not only are Obama’s appointments moving him into an expanded war in Afghanistan, but the powerful Israel Lobby is pushing Obama toward a war with Iran.

The unreality in which he US government operates is beyond belief. A bankrupt government that cannot pay its bills without printing money is rushing headlong into wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, the cost to the US taxpayers of sending a single soldier to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq is $775,000 per year!

Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. After seven years of conflict, there is still no defined mission or endgame scenario for US forces in Afghanistan. When asked about the mission, a US military official told NBC News, “Frankly, we don’t have one.” NBC reports: “they’re working on it.”

Speaking to House Democrats on February 5, President Obama admitted that the US government does not know what its mission is in Afghanistan and that to avoid “mission creep without clear parameters,” the US “needs a clear mission.”

How would you like to be sent to a war, the point of which no one knows, including the commander-in-chief who sent you to kill or be killed? How, fellow taxpayers, do you like paying the enormous cost of sending soldiers on an undefined mission while the economy collapses?"

The second article basically show a graph and explaination that the last 2 years of market movement can be correlated to the amount of debt the QEs have added to the FED's balance sheet. In other words, it all manipulation. So on Tuesday when the FED announces QE3, buy! BTW, I believe that all this government manipulation is going to end very very badly.

http://www.traderdannorcini.blogspot.com/

Portege writes:

"I do support government workers having the right to go on a vacation, take breaks . . . "

What a guy.

"Speaking to House Democrats on February 5, President Obama admitted that the US government does not know what its mission is in Afghanistan and that to avoid 'mission creep without clear parameters,' the US 'needs a clear mission.'"

Bluelight, how about a link or reference? Without one I'm a bit suspicious about the possibility your two brief quotations may be taken out of context, and might not really represent Obama "admitting that the U.S. government does not know what its mission is in Afghanistan."

Sorry Laguy, I can't find a link to the English version of the paper. I did find a reference to the quote from 02/09, so quote probably is outdated today. I'm sure any "intelligent and well educated man" would have figured out the mission in Afghanistan in 2 years. Let me look. And I here it is: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60160

For those that are wondering, here is the mission:
“We are still going to dismantle and defeat al-Qaida and its extremist allies, and prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a haven for them again,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

The goal of international partners is a secure and stable Afghanistan, Mullen said, a country that can defend itself, provide for itself and its citizens, and contribute to the economic betterment of the region.

The strategy calls for a broad and deliberate counterinsurgency campaign to protect the Afghan people. “Again, none of this has changed with the arrival of (Army) Gen. (David) Petraeus,” he said.


So I feel so much better, we now have a mission.

Okay, so it looks like Obama's comment that he was trying to formulate what our mission was in Afghanistan was made about three weeks after he took office. Or did I miss something?

There are some points in this thread that are debatable, so let me present a few points that I believe are not debatable, explainable or defensible.

- Obama pledged 8 different times the debate on healthcare would be put on C-Span. This never happened and much of the debate was behind closed doors.

Youtube link: http://youtu.be/kPMf6kW_1Nw

- Obama stated matter of factly that he was against the surge in Iraq. Then he softly conceeded in 2010 that it did work. In fact, Obama has a little surge of his own in Afghanistan and US casualties have sky-rocketed during the course of his Presidency.

Youtube link: http://youtu.be/Yb-AhVH1Hjg

- Obama stated during his campaign several times that he was against a federal spending freeze. Then he states there will be a federal spending freeze.

Youtube link: http://youtu.be/O2bR1zcHH34

- Here is one funny video which contrasts the 2009 and 2010 state of the union speeches. He seems to make completely opposite statements during each speech:

Youtube link: http://youtu.be/Cg0n0nIqgrc


Well, there are many videos on youtube where Obama has completely flip-flopped and could I ask that someone here provides a valid defense? How could we trust Obama in the future with these obvious flip-flops?

On a side-note, lets see what the Marines have to say about Bush vs. Obama:

http://youtu.be/xIHz5tevLAw

I thought I might add this image to the debate on Obama:

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10/picture-of-the-week-7/

Obama's words are nothing more then what he reads from a teleprompter. In this speech, he sounds sincere about bullying, but he is just reading from a teleprompter in the background. The truth is that Obama is not very sincere. His words are not his own and his speeches do not really matter. Whatever he says now, he will surely flip-flop later on. I am being kind by calling it a "flip-flop"...I could use the word "lie" which is just as accurate as "flip-flop", but less kind.

Lets say the Republicans put forth a mediocre candidate. At this point, I believe a mediocre candidate would be better then Obama. My opinion is that Obama should simply step aside for the 2012 election and let another Democratic candidate run. I really dont care if a Democrat or Republican wins, but I solidly believe that Obama simply does not have the "right stuff". Even the strongest supporters of Obama admit there are problems. There are very few people who will admit publicly to supporting Obama, however, the anti-Obama crowd is a lot more vocal.

In 2012, I believe many people who voted for Obama in 2008 will simply sit this one out. They dont want to vote for a Republican, but they will not vote for Obama. So they will sit at home on their hands because they dont want to be a part of that. Obama should just step down and that would be the best for this country.

(Message edited by Portege on March 13, 2011)

Portege, I knew Beachman, I read Beachman, and you are no Beachman.

Just Kidding!! Actually I'm getting this sinking Beachman deja vu feeling.

Okay, Portege, you convinced me. Obama didn't fulfill his campaign promise to broadcast all the health care meetings on C-SPAN. Moreover, the marines didn't clap as hard at his speech as at Bush's (ignoring for the moment the Obama speech was more sober and not designed to elicit wild demonstrations of enthusiasm). THE CASE IS MADE!!! OBAMA MUST BE THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!! Even Hitler (apologies IAS) would have broadcast his health care debates if he said he would. CASE CLOSED.

For the record, I never compared Obama to Hitler and I did not say he was the worst President in history. I did create a poll where one of the options you could select was he is the worst President in history, however, that was not a statement as to my opinion. I also want to say that I would never compare anyone to Hitler or say they are truly the worst. My opinion is that I think we can have someone better then the man we have now. Has their been issues with the current President? I would say yes, I believe so. There are things that Obama did in which I supported, but I dont think he is the absolute best choice and wish he would not run again. I feel someone else should be given a shot whether it be a Democrat or Republican. Let see if someone else can do better.

I do believe not broadcasting the health care meetings on CSPAN to be a big deal. Obama stated at least 9 times publicly in strong language that it would happen. When it did not happen, Obama stayed silent and then did not explain as to why. Gibbs was asked by reporters many times and pressed for an answer, but Gibbs chose to dodge the question. If you say something strongly and it doesnt happen, then you at least owe the public an explanation as to why. Its to note that this is just one out of many things Obama has flip-flopped or lied about. He has a history of saying one thing, but doing something entirely different. You can't really trust him. I can understand there are times when we have to flip-flop and move in a different direction, but when that happens, a full and detailed explanation should follow as to why. Dodging questions and staying silent does not inspire trust and its simply not good leadership.

Honestly, do you want to re-elect someone who says one thing and does another without explanation? When Joe Wilson yelled "you lie", I thought that was too strong, too aggressive and inappropriate. However, as time moved on, I found his statement to be accurate. Its to note that Joe Wilson was re-elected in 2010 despite his overly strong public outburst and so I take that as the public supporting his statement to Obama ("you lie").

I will give credit for some of the things that Obama did. Im not going to say he is an evil man or unpatriotic. However, I cannot support him in 2012. I think someone else needs to get a shot at this. I also wanted to add the other candidates like Romney and Huckabee do stand a chance. They have about 45% support and Obama only has a slight lead over them. If they can debate him well enough, then I think they could capture the Presidency.

Both Huckabee and Romney seem more qualified then Obama. Both of them have experience at leading as they were Governors in the past. Romney has an MBA from Harvard and was the CEO of Bain&Company so he has that business expertise. In looking at both resumes, I would say Romney is the most qualified. Romney has that business experience and I believe he could get the economy on the right track. Presently, 6 in 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track...

(Message edited by Portege on March 13, 2011)

BTW, take a look at Bain and Company. If Romney was an employee and CEO of this company at one time, then that says volumes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_%26_Company

You can't argue that Romney is not qualified. He went to the best schools, lead the best consulting firm and was the governor of Mass.

There are some of Romney's positions I do not care for, but I think its all about jobs and economy right now. I want to see everyone working and I want to see everyone in agreement the economy is thriving. I believe someone like Romney can get us back on the "right track". Once we get the economy and employment on that track, then we can talk about other issues. Right now the only thing that matters is getting Joe the Plumber back to work. This is a concept that Obama seems to miss...

Yup Laguy I would say that also. BTW, what do you think of the mission? $750k/yr per solider seems expensive to me. Seems like we could outsource that to China also.

My post of March 9 comes about as close to expressing my views on Afghanistan as I can get and if you are interested in my views on this, you should read it.

It may be that essentially maintaining the status quo is a good enough mission, albeit not a very satisfactory one, for the time being (and maybe for the next five or even ten years), I really don't know.

What I do know is I know less than Obama about what is going on there and what the likely outcomes of various courses of action would be. And since I basically trust him both in terms of his values and intelligence, and know he is not "war hungry" I don't have a problem at the moment with his decisions on this matter.

I've spoken directly with some politicos definitely in the know and as far as Afghanistan goes, the overall assessment is to hold our noses and continue to support the current government for the foreseeable future. There's no real alternative there. There was, of course, a real chance back in 2002-2003 to have made a real government, but when the Bushies turned an eye to Iraq we basically left Afghanistan in limbo for a few years.

As such, the Taliban hung around, the foreign fighters hung around, and Karzai government figured out they didn't have the cash to rebuild the country, so they decided to basically set up shop as feudal-style lords. There is an extremely nice neighborhood of new McMansions in Kabul that is 100% paid for by US and UN funds. The drug trade is prospering and the Taliban still controls a lot of the country. To be honest, it's more like Vietnam than Iraq is.

"it's more like Vietnam than Iraq is."

Except our enemies in Afghanistan blew up (or were complicit in blowing up) the World Trade Center and are real enemies, and our "enemies" in Vietnam did such things as quote, e.g., Thomas Jefferson at their Presidential inaugural speeches, something I'm not expecting the Taliban or Al Qaeda to do anytime soon (well maybe if they are waterboarded first).

"And since I basically trust him both in terms of his values and intelligence, and know he is not "war hungry" I don't have a problem at the moment with his decisions on this matter."

Its difficult to really "know" Barrack Obama. For example, he tells us how important healthcare is and then lights up a cigarette in the other hand. Wait a second. You are lecturing us about healthcare and you are a chain smoker? Every speech that Obama makes is pre-written by professional speech makers. Obama simply reads the words off from a teleprompter. You dont really know if he truly believes what he is reading.

Obama has no executive experience...no military experience...so you might have more experience and be more knowledgeable then him. Basically, Obama takes advice from a bunch of generals and the Secretary of Defense. The same bunch that advised Bush and got us into this war in Afghanistan.

My opinion is the US should stop meddling in other country's affairs. No good has ever come from it. In regards to Afghanistan, they should try to leave as soon as possible. I dont see Russia or China involved in Afghanistan. If other major countries are not involved, then all the more reason the US should not get involved. I do know there are other country's forces in Afghanistan, but the US seems to predominate in that region more then anyone else.

If the US is going to send out a military force then it should only be by invitation and only as part of a multi-national force where other countries contribute just as many troops to the situation.

Is Obama war hungry? I can honestly say I dont know. All I know is the words that Obama reads off of a teleprompter. Those words are not Obama's words, but ones that were carefully crafted by a professional speech writer. It is very seldom that Obama opens and avails himself to reporters or other third parties to ask freehand questions. Most times Obama has to be provided the questions so he can carefully prepare.

Do I know Obama? No. Do you or anyone else really know what Obama is all about? I think not. In fact, it appears the Obama you saw in 2008 is different then the one you see now. Physically, he looks older and seems more shy. The guy you saw in 2008 was more aggressive and seemed to have a lot more energy. The one in 2012 looks like he has aged 10 or more years with greyish hair and a face that has wrinkled up some. In any event, he is not the same person you might have voted for.

(Message edited by Portege on March 14, 2011)

Actually, Portege I got as far as your second paragraph and couldn't read further since I had already read enough transparent bullshit.

First off, if you knew anything about Obama, i.e., did any research on the subject, you would know that he is more actively involved in writing his speeches than any President in recent history, bar none. Your claim to the contrary is the claim of a complete ignoramous.

Second, yes he did become addicted to cigarettes while a teenager. He seems to have quit although like many who become addicted to cigarettes while young, there are times when he has back slid. But he either does not smoke now, or rarely does so, and if he does it is always away from his family and other people (second-hand smoke). Only a complete douchefuck would conclude this disqualifies him from being in favor of health care programs.

I assume the rest of your post is equally stupid and nonsensical, but I will never know as I'm not going to waste my time reading it given I've already wasted too much time reading your ignorant nonsense.


(Message edited by laguy on March 14, 2011)

Im not there with the man so I am not going to claim to "know" how the speeches get written. I do know that he uses a teleprompter for every speech unlike many past Presidents and current politicians who speak off the cuff. I see the President has a heavy schedule with his many golf outings so I am going to make the assumption that he probably uses professional speech writers. Lets say he wrote the speeches himself then he still has some explaining to do. On Youtube, I see many videos where he says one thing one day and then says something completely different the next day or next month. I think you might want to assume there are different speech writers because if we assume that Obama wrote all this stuff then we might also assume we are dealing with a challenged personality who cannot make up their mind as to what to do next.

Im not saying it disqualifies him, all I am saying is that he does not seem to be the appropriate spokesperson for such a matter. For example, lets say I am a heavy drinker. Should I be the spokesperson for Alcoholics Anonymous or Mothers Against Drunk Driving? Just because I drink heavily doesnt mean I would be a bad spokesperson, but it comes down to credibility. A heavy drinker would not be a credible spokesperson for such a matter just like a smoker is not a good spokesperson for healthcare.

(Message edited by Portege on March 14, 2011)

I wanted to add that name calling doesnt strengthen your argument. It only serves to distract us away from the real issues and is not a powerful reply during a debate. If you are name calling to somehow throw me off or get me worked up, then that wont work. Ive been around here for a while and taken a lot of punches. Obviously, Im still here and it only strengthens my resolve and emboldens my approach.

This is an interesting article. Apparently, Obama made an off-hand comment that he thought it would be easier to be President of China. Some here might give Obama a pass and tell us that we all make off-handed comments at times, but I dont give the President of the USA a pass so easily.

When you are in an executive position, your words are crucial. Obama simply does not have the leadership skills for the position of President.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/obama-wishes-he-was-president-china


Obama wishes he was president of China




Comments (0)SharePrint

By:William Kristol03/12/11 11:38 AM
Special to the Examiner
.

“Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’”

“Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East,” The New York Times, March 11, 2011.

Mr. Obama is right.

If you’re president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don’t really expect you to help. If you’re president of China, you don’t have to put up with annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators. If you’re president of China, you can fund your national public radio to your heart’s content. And if you’re president of China, when you host a conference on bullying in schools, people take you seriously.

Unfortunately for him and us, Barack Obama is president of the United States. That job brings with it certain special responsibilities. It’s a tough job—maybe tougher than being president of China. But Barack Obama ran for president of the United States. Maybe he should start behaving as one.

Read more at The Weekly Standard.

What is this thread about? Every time I try to read it I fall asleep.

Its about Obama...politics and government.

This post pretty much has gone completely south....good luck Protege! Some things seem hopeless probably because they are...

I dont see how this thread has gone south. It appears I made some valid points about Obama, you guys got frustrated because some of the points are really not defensable and so you started calling me names. Then once you started calling me names, you declared victory by saying its "hopeless" and just a "rant". Let me just say you probably don't want to enter a debating contest with these conversational tactics. If you want to demonstrate your keen intellect, then you would stick to debating the points I am making. If you want to do the right thing, then you would concede to the points when they are really not defensable.

I understand why folks want to stick with Obama. They are basically trying to stick to their guns. They dont want to admit they were wrong about the guy. I saw the poll numbers today and only 2 in 10 Americans "strongly approve" of Obama while the rest seem to have issues with what he is doing. You can stick to your guns, but I can tell you that you belong to a minority of people that is growing smaller.

(Message edited by Portege on March 14, 2011)

Obama was elected because he was not Bush (or a member of his party). It really was that simple. There was no mandate. Even the racists rationalized that they were voting for a guy who was half white. That is how much Bush was hated.

Unfortunately, Obama did not have the qualifications to be president during good times let alone bad times. The US needed a leader and didn't get one. And, do not read between the lines -- nothing I wrote said McCain would have been any better.

As for Clinton, everyone knew when they voted for him he was a liar. He lied BUT he was elected. The Republicans trying to unelect him was an embarrassment.

I could see how Bush got elected president. What I don't understand is how Harvard could stoop so low as to graduate him from their MBA program.

I am not disappointed in Obama. He has perfomed exactly as you would expect someone without experience to perform. Doesn't make him stupid or someone to dislike. Just the way it is.

Why would Mccain not have been better? Lets take a peak at Mccain's resume.

- US Naval Academy
- United States Navy officer, achieved field grade level after about 7 years at age 31
- United States Navy pilot
- Navy Commendation Medal, Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit
- Prisoner of War, When offered release he refused. He would not go until all of his buddies went with him. 5 years as a prisoner and leader of the prisoners.
- Retired with a rank of Captain
- Short stint as the VP at a large beer distributorship
- 5 terms as a US Senator

now lets look at Barrack Obama
- Harvard Law School, Columbia University
- Community Organizer
- Civil Rights Attorney
- State Senator 1 term
- US Senator 1 term

Let me ask you. After reading the above, who would you trust being the Commander in Chief? If your son or daughter was in the armed forces, who would you want leading them? McCain fought in a war, he was a prisoner in a war.

I read this article today about Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/14/obama-urged-seize-reins-crises-pile/

Despite all thats going on, Obama is going on another golf outing. Obama seems to be at a breaking point. Let me tell you that McCain spent 5 years as a prisoner being tortured. I dont think he would reach such a breaking point and take control of this situation.

McCain barely made it out of the Naval Academy and was an aviator because his dad and granddad made it happen. He's got more screws loose than tight at this point, and has never been described as intellectual. Plus, he chose Palin as his running mate, which in and of itself cancels out anything on his resume which shows that he's fit for office.

Portege, Obama has done fine, the reason we're not debating you on it is that you're an idiot. Don't take it personally, but you pretty much are, as your trip reports and posts have all indicated. Thus, you're as qualified to debate Republican talking points as an illiterate filipino jeepney driver.

McCain and his people also let William Kristol talk them into making Palin McCain's running mate. Kristol also was one of the leading neo-conservatives pushing the Bush Administration to go to war in Iraq. Anyone who would listen to Kristol and his idiotic views is an automatic retard.

Oh, wait a minute. Wasn't Kristol the person Portege quoted above regarding Obama's supposed shortcomings?

Why can't you provide any backup on your "escalating taxes" bombshell or use the word "than" correctly?

Obama served in the Illinois State Legislature from 1997 to 2004, and was re-elected twice. He was not a one-termer, as Dufus McFucktard, who apparently believes it is okay to post numerous lies in this thread, claims.

I have never understood how being a prisoner of war provides the experience to be President. Although one can respect the service it represents, it is not exactly the road to good mental health. In any event using prisoner of war experience as something that contributes to an effective presidency strikes me as lame.

I assume McCain becoming VP briefly for a large beer distributorship (assuming this claim is true) was the result of his marriage to the owner of the distributorship (at that point it may have been owned by her father rather than her, I'm not sure about that).

Like Bush, whatever credentials McCain had were the result of family connections (well, except for his finishing essentially at the bottom of his class (894 of 899) at the Naval Academy at Annapolis; he did that all by himself. But at least when he was about to be expelled from the Academy, he did enlist his father, who achieved the rank of four-star admiral, and it was his father who kept that from happening.

(Message edited by LAguy on March 14, 2011)

Japan and Libya seem like very serious situations. I just looked at the world markets and many are down 2-3%. Japan's reactors are leaking. Lets also throw on the plate the mass protests happening all over the United States, i.e. Wisconsin, and the budget crisis.

If you were President of the United States, what would be the last thing you would do in a time of crisis? Let me show you what Obama has planned this weekend.



http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/just-warm-enough-for-golf-obama-back-on-the-course.html

If I were President, then I would establish a command center and work through the weekend trying to find solutions. This is not a time to be out on the course. This is a time for leadership and leading from the front. Apparently, Obama leads from the golf course.

Again, I ask, is this the type of man you want leading your sons or daughters into battle? Answer me honestly. People are dieing, they are suffering, the budget is a mess, the world markets crashing and protesters are swarming state capitals...and what is Obama doing...golf???

Would McCain be leading from the golf course at this point in time or would he not quit until everyone was happy again? If Obama were a POW then he would have been home early because he needs to get back to the golf course. I could trust McCain to do the right thing and lead from the front.

It seems like you guys want to bring disdain to an American war hero. Although McCain's father was an admiral, there is no question that he spent 5 years as a POW. When offered release, he refused until all of the prisoners were set free. Lets not forget how he earned his medals. There were real events in which he earned those medals. He did earn the purple heart...those were real injuries. His father did not help him earn any of those medals.

McCain is a multi-term Senator. His father has no power over the voters that put him into that office for several terms.

Please dont dismiss these facts in regards to a decorated war hero and multi-term Senator. All of our families have a certain influence on our lives. The majority of people here probably landed a position in life as a result of family, good friends or well established connections.

The fact that he went golfing one morning demonstrates lack of leadership, because of a horrible disaster in ANOTHER country??? And how exactly do you know how McCain would or would not do at this exact moment??? The problem is that you really cannot argue with an idiot...it is pointless!

Lovingmarvin,

Pretend I am the Captain of a US Navy destroyer. Do you think the time to go golfing is when the ship is at port in Hawaii or when the ship is under fire by some Iranian naval patrol boats? There is an appropriate and inappropriate time for everything.

Right now, the world needs some strong leadership. Now is the time, more then at any other time, we need to see our President out there and, at least, appearing to do something. Maybe fly to Japan to view the damage, maybe a press conference, anything, something, but going on a golf outing sends the wrong message and is not appropriate.

It might be appropriate to go golfing in a few months, but I would say now is certainly not the time. The Captain of the ship has to be there when its taking fire. Obviously, Obama is not there. He is out there, but he is not there. I didnt see one press conference today. Obama should be actively speaking about these incidents, form a command center devoted to bringing about solutions and stay in that White House until there are solutions. Right now, Obama is packing it up for another golf outing. You can't defend that.

Again, your point is? Obviously it would be different for a Captain of a ***US**** Navy destroyer if Hawaii was attacked(which I remember being part of the ****US****, but I could be wrong) versus a horrible nature disaster stiking ANOTHER COUNTRY (i.e. ***non-US***). I am sure even someone as terrible as Obama would not be going golfing then - i.e. when another country commits an act of war against the US!!


(Message edited by lovingmarvin on March 15, 2011)

Next thing you know Portege is going to criticize Obama for taking a shit in the middle of some crisis. I find it unbelievable that a member of the human species is so fucking dumb.

The problem is people like Protege simply googling up whatever fact they want, if it is fact based or not. Apparently there is a lack of intelligence and the ability to appropriately filter news and information

Did you know that Obama is the anti-christ? :-) Here I googled it up, so it MUST BE TRUE -> http://o.bamapost.com/

Protege, why don't you start contributing to that blog???


(Message edited by lovingmarvin on March 15, 2011)

Well, I don't remember the Japanese emperor coming to New Orleans after Katrina, so there goes that false analogy out the window.

As to what McCain would be doing, he would be taking a nap and Vice-President Palin would be on her front porch at the Observatory burning books or trying to discreetly get an abortion for her daughter.

Portege,

I got some bad news. Obama is going to win in 2012. Your posts are so full of hope but I got to dash it. Obama wins. He will certainly not win by as much as he won in 2008 but he wins again. It is not because Obama could not be doing a better job, it is because the Republicans could not find a good candidate and Obama squeaks by.

You can call me whatever names you want, but its simply not cool disrespecting a decorated war hero. Whether his Dad got him into the Navy or not is not really important. What is important is that he fought during the war, earned his medals and served honorably. Even though his Dad was an Admiral, that didnt stop him from getting captured and tortured for 5 years. That didnt stop him from fighting.

I dont care what you call me, but please dont disrespect our service members or former service members. Thats "not cool". Just because you dont like me, dont take it out on our military.

I saw this article just come up and it appears even Alan Greenspan is Obama bashing.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/15/greenspan-says-obama-admin-too-active-economy?test=latestnews

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says the Obama Administration's "activism" in handling economic affairs is hampering what could otherwise be a robust recovery from the recent recession.

(Message edited by Portege on March 15, 2011)

"Protege, why don't you start contributing to that blog???"

Im not going to contribute to that blog because I do not have extreme opinions. I do not think Obama is the anti-christ or Hitler. I never said that during his thread. In fact, there are some things I support, but I believe Obama is not a good choice overall. I believe someone different could do a better job. Obama has simply not done well in the position.

Since when is getting shot out of the sky and not completing your mission heroic? Epic fail on his part.

Then again, any other midshipman with his academic record would have never been accepted into flight school in the first place. Further evidence that it's nice to have a daddy and granddaddy admiral on your side.

"While the federal income tax has not gone up, there have been several other taxes that have escalated."

Please cough up your evidence backing up this statement.

He is probably referring to something like an increase in the municipal sewer tax he has to pay at the trailer park.

"Then again, any other midshipman with his academic record would have never been accepted into flight school in the first place."

And lest we forget, before he was sent into combat he crashed two planes and another he was flying collided with some power lines. In other words a disaster waiting to happen. Not surprising given his record of recklessness and the fact his becoming a pilot was not based on merit, but rather who his father was.

(Message edited by laguy on March 15, 2011)

Porteges, although I might not agree with some of your positions I would like to complement you on the way you have debated and argued your position. Wile others have acted like children throwing insults rather then articulating their views you have resisted doing likewise and stayed on point, I commend you for that.

Thanks for the compliment. I dont mind the insults being thrown at myself, I have no issue with that. However, I do take issue with others hurling insults at members or former members of the military who have made sacrifices in the line of duty.

There might be some disagreement on whether or not John McCain should have been President. However, to attack the man on account of his military record is wrong. He did earn 17 awards to include the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, and the Purple Heart. He was injured in battle. He did fly missions in combat which could have gotten him killed. He was imprisoned and tortured for 5 years by enemy forces.

I could choose to ignore these insults towards a former decorated member of the military, but I have to say something. Its not right to say such things about people in the military making sacrifices. Its not right to insult them. Even if you are doing it for the sake of messageboard conversational strategy, its still not right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJvRUL81ZU8&feature=related

McCain was a donkey sent into a horse race. Poor old guy never had a chance. It was is tired ideas that did him in in the end.

For once, it's another country having problems, not us. While we are there to help, the weight of fixing this is on Japan. Which by the way, will be functional before Costa Rica...

First off, I am not one who believes in extreme or activist type behavior when it comes to politics. Some here seem to want to make it seem like I believe Obama is the anti-christ or Hitler. I have no such notions, none whatsoever. In fact, I am against such theories and ideas as oftentimes that type of thinking leads to no good.

Second, if you want to debate from a purely factual standpoint then lets do that. Lets start off with Alan Greenspan and his recent speech.

Mr. Greenspan was the Chairman of the Federal Reserve for many years. He is now presently stating that Obama's activist mentality is causing a lackluster recovery.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110307/pl_ac/8011586_alan_greenspan_obama_economic_policy_slowing_recovery

I know some on this board will have some criticism for Greenspan so what about all the other people who have publicly spoken against Obama such as Steve Forbes, Donald Trump, the Chamber of Commerce, etc. The list goes on.

Might I also present another fact. If everything was going so well, then how come the majority of Americans do not approve of what Obama is doing? Obviously, something is wrong.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

I think to argue that things are not going well and to blame that on Obama completely and totally ignores the fact that Bush and Republicans controlled all three branches of the Federal Government for 6 years.

Democrats controlled 1/3 of the Federal Government from 2006-2008, 2/3 from 2008-2010. Now they control half (with the split on Congress and Republicans still with a majority on the Supreme Court.) And yeah, we are still digging out from the freaking big steaming pile of shit Republicans left us.

Unfortunately, we are also in a difficult political climate and the pussies in Washington from 2008-2010 were too scared of their own shadow to actually do anything about it. This is where I give the Republican major props. At least they vote as a block and the consequences be damned. Democrats get into power and then spend all their time trying not to look "too much like Democrats" and promptly get voted out anyway.

The economic mess we are in right now was created by the first six years of the Bush Administration when Republicans controlled all branches of the Federal Government, a power the Democrats have not recently had...

Some argue, like Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman, that the stimulus didn't go far enough and that is why the recovery is not faster.

And the whole Tea Party movement to me is a complete and total fraud. You can't do shit about the deficit by only looking at 12% of the Federal Budget. What they are doing now is all show. It is also completely and totally disingenuous to say that tax cuts for the top 1% of all earners in America must be kept (even though they have cost 800 billion to 1 trillion in lost revenue) so far while saying we need to cut other programs and others must sacrifice and a teacher in Wisconsin making 50K a year is "living large."

Steve Forbes and the Chamber of Commerce are right wing partisan hacks. Donald Trump is making noise because he wants to develop and sell real estate and casinos and we all know the real estate market is in the shitter.

I read your first article listed. The last time the Federal Government "got out of the way" the idiots on Wall Street damn near collapsed the entire world economy. So private investment is withholding their money now? Good.

At least they aren't thinking up Ponzi schemes and credit default swaps or some other fake way to artificially create wealth on the backs of the US taxpayers.

If an idea is good enough and they think they can make money off of it, they will eventually pony up.

(Message edited by xenono on March 16, 2011)

I dont think Bush was the direct cause of the economic meltdown. The direct cause, in my opinion, was the housing speculation. Im not sure what Bush could have done to stop housing speculation except to do some wildly unpopular stuff like roll back the various tax regulations that encouraged the boom. We could also blame Wall Street, the real estate brokers, the reits, etc. The list goes on and on and even with strict regulation its still not possible to nail those Wall Street guys down. Even today, under Obama, the Wall Street guys are still getting away with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_mortgage_interest_deduction#United_States

This is a democracy so Bush or Congress could not come out and tell people not to buy houses. Of course, in hindsight, there is always more that could have been done.

Another factor is the unions making it harder for companies to do business. When cops, bus drivers, toll collectors and firemen are making six figure salaries, retiring at age 45 and making more in retirement then when they were actually working...then you know something is wrong. However, Bush couldn't simply come out and ban unions.

So I guess that it is convenient to want to blame Bush for all your problems, but its definately not the entire truth. There were many reasons and different players in the equation besides Bush.

No Im not ignoring that Bush and the Republicans were in office for the first 6 years. However, I dont believe they could have done much to prevent what would eventually happen short of draconian measures somewhat like the Chinese are doing now to prevent real estate speculation. (Notice how the Chinese have more control over their society and taking draconian measures, but they are failing to prevent real estate speculation.)

Now we are at a point in time where we have to GET PAST blaming people and start working on solutions. Ok, so blame Bush for your every worry and problem, but what has happened is done. Now where is the solution? I dont see Obama presenting many solutions. Does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(btw, it doesnt seem like its made healthcare more affordable) encourage or discourage job creation? Does more regulation encourage or discourage business from growing and expanding?

I see Obama as an activist President. In times past when folks were working 14 hour days and getting obviously abused then activism was essential. However, there is no longer such a need for such activism and, in times like this, it discourages business and jobs.

So vote for Obama if you believe his activist agenda (like Obamacare) has encouraged business and jobs. I ask that you just dont think of yourself or your own situation when you pull that handle. What about future generations and the children? What we need now is a pro-jobs/pro-economy President. Someone who is business friendly and can work with American companies. Obama seems openly hostile to many industries and is an activist. Thats not what we need right now.

Oh yeah, about that government stimulus, the government does not have unlimited supply of money. Actually, they can print as much as they want, but do you really want a wheel barrel full of money to be worth next to nothing? The government can only go so far with stimulus and other such things. The well will run dry eventually.

(Message edited by Portege on March 18, 2011)

There you go, finally more balanced counter points based on personal opinions, not googled up "facts" and links...thank you! Some I agree with, and others I can respectfully disagree with....

The reason why I post up links is to add some type of reference.

For the last year or so, the majority of Obama's press coverage has been negative. On Bloomberg Radio, Ed Koch comes on nightly to blast Obama's different policies. The majority of people believe healthcare reform should be repealed. In the Washington Post, day after day there are op-eds that attack Obama. Then lets add to it last election where the Democratic party took a thrashing and unseated Nancy Pelosi. Despite all of the negativity this last year or so, there is still that crowd that keeps the faith. About 45% of the public at least somewhat approves and 25% strong approves of Obama's performance according to Rasmussen. Other polls seem to reinforce the Rasmussen findings.

If there is one positive thing I have to say about Obama then that would be he seems to be a very charasmatic, well spoken individual. If he was not as well spoken, then his approval would probably not be so high. The majority of Obama's policies are clearly not all that popular.

As for McCain, I don’t think he would have made a good president but I think besmirching his war record is just plane disgusting especially coming from people who never served their country. The fact that his father was a high ranking member of the armed forces makes his achievements more noteworthy not less so.

Isawal, I think you miss the point. McCain got into the Naval Academy due to his connections, not his grades. If his grandfather and father hadn't gotten him in, he would never have made it with his grades and accomplishments in high school.

Once in, he did graduate, but very near the bottom of the class. Guys at the bottom get last pick of career paths, and they don't get aviator billets. Except Lil'Johnny, because of paps and grandpaps.

As an aviator, he was bad to mediocre - as LAGuy points out. He crashed a plan into the Gulf of Mexico while a student aviator - usually enough to get you kicked out but, again, when you have some admirals in your corner, you get more chances than the normal aviator candidate. He flew a jet into electrical lines in Spain a year later, and caused a blackout over half of Andalusia. Then, a few years later, he crashed another trainer. A few years later, he was one of the pilots involved in the fire on the USS Forrestal that killed over 125 sailors and nearly sank the carrier. Then he gets shot down.

All-in-all, a guy who wouldn't and shouldn't have been a pilot in the first place, and once made a pilot would've been grounded and probably out of the Navy after his basic commitment was over except for his father and grandfather.

There are a good number of examples of extremely special treatment he received because of his family. Being a really bad aviator is the result of them.

Just a friendly reminder, the "Terms of Service" of this website forbid posting any personal information up about any of the members. I would not post that person's occupation on the board.

If we are going to talk about special treatment, then I would not include Obama anywhere in the conversation. Cynthia Stroum was a big donor to Obama's campaign and she was rewarded with a high ranking diplomat position. This confuses me. Why would Obama simply hand a position over to someone who is so obviously unqualified?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/big-obama-donor-quits-diplomatic-post-am

You are aware that ambassadorships are political appointments, not civil service jobs? Thus, many go to politicians and supporters, not career civil service?

Were you aware that cnsnews was originally called The Conservative News Service, with the express aim of delivery a conservative slant on the news? Would that not tell you, if you weren't such a complete idiot, that their stories will be biased against any Democrat and any Democratic policy or action?

(Message edited by catocony on March 22, 2011)

Two years into Obama's presidency and what do we have? The banks are doing well, wallstreet is doing great, the working people are sucking ass. Unemployment rates are still sky high with no hope in sight.

His foreign policy is George Bush two with involvement in both the old wars and now we have a brand new war.

Nader said that Obama was nonconfrontational and that it would be his undoing. Obama had huevos the size of bbs and did not take the initiative when he had the political clout in both houses of congress.

Universal healthcare was one of his few triumphs and long overdue IMO.

If this military faux pas in Libya falls flat, then Obama may have to run for his own parties' nomination.

The only issue out there that excites me is the republican Donald Trump's desire to confront China and put an import tax on their products.

If they balk at this then we can put our own people to work once again. Trump gets it, Obama and congress in general do not or simply want to stay on the Chinese payoff list.

I see bewilderment in Obama's eyes now. He has really made a serious blunder which will bite him in the ass.

Mathew Lee is a writer for the Associated Press not for CNS. He wrote this article which went out to many news services and it looks like it was re-published in many news outlets.

Cat
The point I was trying to make about McCain was that with his connections he could have got a cushy posting, into the reserves ( like Georgie Jr.) or out of the military all together. He chose to serve and should get some credit for that. Wile a POW he seemed to have behaved well beyond what was expected of him.
I should add that I don’t think that these qualities would necessarily have made him a good President, in fact I tend to agree with you that some of his negative qualities out way his positive ones, I am thinking more along the lines of how he treated his first wife and some of the political choices he has made not least his selection of running mate.
To get back to the subject of this thread “What makes you keep the faith on Obama?” I think Obama is in a very difficult situation and has not handled it particularly well. How about this as a question. There are over 310 million people living in the United States at the moment, if any citizen of the United States could be president who would you select and would it be Obama?

Well, since the Navy was the family business, he did the opposite and used his connections to get a spot in the academy, an aviator candidate billet and then kept him flying long after any other aviator would have been grounded and most likely separated long before he got shot down. Do I give him credit for going into combat? Yeah, that's fine, but it shouldn't be Navy policy to give any hotheaded showoff a couple million bucks worth of college and then flight and military training just to go get blown out of the sky.

Face it, if you were shooting a war movie about pilots, McCain would be the stereotypical fun guy who really shouldn't be there but is, who skates by and gets second chances and then has a tragic yet predictable end.

Actually Cat there was a film made about McCain and his time as a POW.

I got this from wikpedia.

On July 29, 1967 McCain, by then a lieutenant commander, was near the center of the Forrestal fire. He escaped from his burning jet and was trying to help another pilot escape when a bomb exploded;[27] McCain was struck in the legs and chest by fragments.[28] The ensuing fire killed 134 sailors and took 24 hours to control.[29][30] With the Forrestal out of commission, McCain volunteered for assignment with the USS Oriskany, another aircraft carrier employed in Operation Rolling Thunder.[31] Once there, he would be awarded the Navy Commendation Medal and the Bronze Star for missions flown over North Vietnam.[32]

Prisoner of war John McCain's capture and subsequent imprisonment began on October 26, 1967. He was flying his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam when his A-4E Skyhawk was shot down by a missile over Hanoi.[33][34] McCain fractured both arms and a leg ejecting from the aircraft,[35] and nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake.[33] Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[33] McCain was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton".[34]

Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, beating and interrogating him to get information; he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral.[36] His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of major newspapers.[37][38]

McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]


McCain being pulled from Truc Bach Lake in Hanoi[42] on October 26, 1967In mid-1968, John S. McCain, Jr. was named commander of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater, and the North Vietnamese offered McCain early release[43] because they wanted to appear merciful for propaganda purposes,[44] and also to show other POWs that elite prisoners were willing to be treated preferentially.[43] McCain turned down the offer; he would only accept repatriation if every man taken in before him was released as well. Such early release was prohibited by the POW's interpretation of the military Code of Conduct: To prevent the enemy from using prisoners for propaganda, officers were to agree to be released in the order in which they were captured.[33]

In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[45] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][45] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, stopped by guards.[33] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[46][47] Many American POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements, with many enduring even longer and worse treatment;[48] virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.[49] McCain subsequently received two to three beatings weekly because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements.[50]

McCain refused to meet with various anti-war groups seeking peace in Hanoi, wanting to give neither them nor the North Vietnamese a propaganda victory.[51] From late 1969 onward, treatment of McCain and many of the other POWs became more tolerable,[52] while McCain continued actively to resist the camp authorities.[53] McCain and other prisoners cheered the U.S. "Christmas Bombing" campaign of December 1972, viewing it as a forceful measure to push North Vietnam to terms.[47][54]

Altogether, McCain was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five and a half years. He was released on March 14, 1973.[55] His wartime injuries left him permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[56]

I am dangerously close to comming off as a McCain supporter which I am not, but from the above and pretty much everything else I have read he comes across pretty much as a war hero, once again I still do not think he would have made a good President.

I really don't get involved in the political debates on CH but I found this YouTube contradiction very interesting;

What a Guy
Obama's father served in WW II, really?

He said so in a speech. Here is an 18 second video:
CNN News clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw
Is he a compulsive liar? Were there no reporters who checked or double checked these statements and called the party on this? They did for everyone else. Why not him?
Here are the facts:
Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father) Born: 6/18/36 Died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started, and less than 9 1/2 yrs. old when it ended.

Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: January 2,1935 Died: 3/2/87 at the age of 52.
He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when it ended. He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.

Watch the video. Right out of his mouth.

And the media doesn't say anything. If you doubt it, Google both of these guys.

It appears this guy doesn't know how to tell the truth -- or he doesn't care about telling the truth -- or perhaps he doesn't know when he isn't telling the truth (which is also a very scary angle). Talk about stolen honor.

Had this been Bush, the media would still be on this.

The CNN clip of Obama is surprising. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this lie wasn’t uncovered, questioned or debated before the Nov. 2008 election.
Oh well, He must have just "forgotten" the facts, again…

P.S. I didn't write the opinion. Just copied and pasted it

It takes less than 10 seconds to find the answer. The slightest bit of research makes it obvious that Obama was referring to his grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham. There are people that would say there is no excuse for referring to a man that raises a child from the age of ten onward as "father", but most people would think nothing of it.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/service.asp

It is sad how low those who wish to destroy Obama's reputation (for whatever reason, ahemmm) will go.

Sandman, why don't you disclose to us what objective (?) news source you chose to cut and paste this "article" from so we can all know who is spreading this transparent garbage. Now THAT might be informative.

Wow, a five months stale thread was brought back for that. Really?

Laguy, it was sent to me in an e-mail but it looks like Magnumpi found the source. I had no motive other than to report something of interest. Like I said, I rarely ever get involved in the political diatribes on Hombre.

Mitch, couldn't find a more recent Obama thread and didn't want to start a new one!

Cheers all

"I had no motive other than to report something of interest."

Sorry Sandman, but since when are unattributed defamatory emails that aren't fact-checked "of interest"?

I'm independent...but the best thing I've heard in a while was Romney's comment "Obama makes the Carter administration look like the good ole days."

1 year, it is the previous guys fault, 2 years that argument could still possibly fly, but it has never worked 2.5 years in. Time to see if somebody else can fix this thing with a strategy that does not involve printing money.

Have to say I don't understand that logic. Previous guy gets 8 years to destroy the country. New guy has to fix it all in 2.5 years. But since he didn't, let's go back to the party and policies that got us here in the first place?

Also hard to do anything when the party not in the white house is pretty much saying no to everything and biding their time till 2012, hoping things get worse so it increaes their chances.

I'm running for President on a "Natural Selection" platform.

As president, I will require IQ testing every 5 years. Fail twice, get euthanized.

Immigration? Welcome, Take this test.

Want Welfare? We understand, Take this test.

Just turned 80? Have a seat, Take this test.

As president, I will give kids an incentive to stay in school. Traffic (and pollution)will be halved, unemployment will disappear overnight. Housing will become more affordable, and prison populations (and the Fox News audience) will dwindle.

Aside from halving the US population , I'll cut the Military in half, Raise the retirement age to 68, and offer tax breaks to parents with children testing in the top tier.

Pretty girls will have the option of "borrowing" a few points from consenting gentlemen...

Yes We Can...

(Message edited by jonesie on September 02, 2011)

Laguy-Sorry for touching such a nerve.

"Sorry Sandman, but since when are unattributed defamatory emails that aren't fact-checked "of interest"?

Facts: Let's see,he said on camera, "My father was in the military in WWII...." Neither his father or stepfather was old enough to have been in WWII"

Facts enough for me to post an interesting observation!

The guy who debunked the myth was merely assuming he was referring to his grandfather. Now, that is not a fact but an assumption!

Who is he to know who Obama was referring to?

Oh well, water over the dam and nothing to get excited about.

Lets talk about beautiful women and elect Jonesie president

By Copabrasil1 on Friday, September 02, 2011 - 11:11 pm:  Edit
I think it is comical that people think the economy is the result of the party in power. The economy is cyclical.

Politics are like sports, everybody has a favorite team and will argue blindly for that team. The reality is that both parties are totally fucked.

The republican party is dominated by the religious right and allows it's conversation to be dominated by issues that have no place in government. Ideologically, they oppose great ideas like high speed rail because of cost. Any good idea that costs money is evil because it costs money-roads or trains don't make sense, you can solve your problems with a Ford 4X4 pick-up. And the fact that the polar ice cap and glaciers are melting at exponential rates by comparison to history, well, that is a left wing conspiracy.

On the flip side, the real people behind the curtain of the democratic party are the ultra-wealthy that have so much money that increases in taxes are ok so long as they can push their favorite social cause while they find a loophole to pay for their Gulfstream with non-taxed dollars. They have their old money so they trick the uneducated into following their cause. This last time they installed Obama, a modern day Robin Hood...only the "rich" that are really getting ripped off are the suburban middle class. Instead of trying to grow business, grow the government, especially when the tax revenues are down! The party is also controlled by organized labor, which has had as big a hand in destroying our economy as any (check out Detroit to see the national benefits of the Unions).

Neither party is a winner, we can only hope that somebody comes to power that is not flying around in a G VI trying to solve world hunger, does not want to mix church and state, and tells the unions to fuck off.

Maybe Jesus will come back and send all those dumb fucking so called conservative christians straight to hell for intentionally distorting the message he left behind 2000 years ago.

Until that happens, we can still believe in Bernie Sanders.

I don't think that Sandman or the reporter are trying to "bash" Obama's reputation.

There's lots of independents on Hombre (self included).

It seems when anyone posts ANY negative Obama comments or make any pro republican comments they are quickly snuffed........

Just my 2 cents..

No, I guess asking whether the President is a compulsive liar, and suggesting that he is, isn't an attempt to "bash" his reputation. Right.

Well, since I am guilty of posting "unsubstantiated" e-mails, I found this one rather interesting as well. Nothing to do with politics (although Obama gets mentioned)but another I found very interesting.

I can think of several Brasilians and Colombians I'd love to pull this on for "payback":

AN ACTUAL CRAIG'S LIST "PERSONALS" AD
To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 2010-09-27, 1:43 a.m. E.S.T.
I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.
First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn't expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket.. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason..my girlfriend was happy that I just returned safely from my 2nd tour as a Combat Marine in Afghanistan .. She had just bought me that Kimber Custom Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head ... isn't it?!
I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].
After I called your mother or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, -- on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 153 gallons and was extremely grateful!
I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]
I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ..... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.
Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what 's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.
The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).
;In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life.. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours, Semper Fi,
Alex

It's a fake.......obviously.

There is really no way to know how good a president he is. he was just handed a shit sandwich. There are just too many problems to handle simultaneously...and the president, especially in a global economy, just doesn't have the tools at his disposal to make a major course correction in our economy or even our public fiscal policies. The basic problem remains that Americans are largely dysfunctional and that is reflected in a dysfunctional Congress. i do not think that Obama had the necessary experience to be President, but neither do most of the candidates that are willing to run for office. I suspect he will be elected because neither Romney nor the Texas clone have national appeal.

Well stated Kersuet123.

Republicans keep harping on Obama's approval ratings in the low 40's, but they seem to ignore the Republican approval ratings far lower than that. No one is happy with the current government, and no Republican currently running or planning to run has better polling numbers than Obama. I think Obama will win, somewhat convincingly, but it will be a "hold your nose" type of election. Many independents will vote for Obama not because of the job he's done, but because they are scared shitless of a Teapublican entering the White House.

**************************What makes you keep the faith on Obama?*****************************

Apparently not everyone has any faith left. Americans seeking permission for their states to peacefully secede from the union have now been filed for by all 50 states. This comes only one week after the election.

I signed one for Florida in order to get rid of Portege, and one for Texas so we won't have to deal with any more of the Bush clan, I just hope we build the wall around Florida and Texas before we get rid of them.

CFK,

What's your point? My read is: there are wackos in all 50 states. Now there's some news! And those petitions are in most cases signed by a handful of losers in each of those states. They have no legal status. This is nonsense news; it's a story that is meaningless.

A Washington Post columnist pointed out that if all the states that voted for Romney seceded, the Blue states would be better off, as the Red states, on average, receive more back from the federal govt. than they pay in taxes, while the Blue states pay more in taxes than they get back in benefits. Go figure!

Roadglide,



Sandman:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/justice/mugger.asp

Fake...