How do you rate Obama as a president?

[AZ_Infantry]

Good joke about Skiing.
I disagree about the economy. I think the president would rather have an economic crisis. You will remember the amount of money he and his toadies in congress are spending. National Debt hovering over 13.1Trillion Dollars thats a 13 with 12 zero's behind it. Unsustainable IMHO. Wonder who/how this will be paid for.

I have two words for you, sir:

Social and Security.

If the government can screw up that simple of an economic concept, their hand cannot be dismissed in even the most egregious or simplest of financial fiascoes meant to be passed on to their heirs.

Paid for? Why do you think we hedge against the Euro Dollar? It sure as hell ain't because the American dollar standard is worth a hill of beans!

:rockin:

 

[mmarsh]

I agree with HokieMSG on this: There is a line, and McCrystal went over it. There were channels he could have expressed his dissatisfaction to, and if that didn't work that he could have resigned. But he did the one thing no active duty General should ever do; badmouth the POTUS to the press. What he did was exactly what Douglas MacArthur did to Truman and so was the Consequences. Obama had no choice but to fire him, no president can afford a subordinate to run their own private show, Obama would have been seriously wrong not to fire him.

As for Obama: Ill agree with Chief Bones. Hes neither the worst nor the best. He's made some bad decisions that were his fault. A little to close to Wall Street, and he also abandoned his base, the people who got him elected by reneging on practically everything he said he was going to do. The fact that the right HATES him is not a big loss, they were never going to be on his side anyway. But by pissing off the people that got him into office was incredibly stupid and the polls show it. The reason his polls are at 45% approval is because his own supporters on the left don't trust him anymore. His unpopularity is so acute amongst the left he is actually in Jeopardy of a primary challenge either by a liberal like Russ Feingold, or a moderate Democrat like Hillary C.

On the other hand, but he inherited a terrible economic situation and 2 wars all of which was not his fault. He also faces a minority political party in congress run by extreme radicals (the party of "No") totally opposed to any attempt to negotiate on practically any subject, resulting in one of the worst political gridlocks in our history.

 

[HokieMSG]

Well put mmarsh. Though the "war" in Iraq is drawing to a close, he still has to contend with the "other" one in A'stan.
I am sponsoring a linguist I worked with in Iraq and he tells me that the GOI (Governement of Iraq) is allowing ALL former members of the military to rejoin. Really a shame since we were making progress on the corruption issue.
Obama has alienated his constituents enough that I think he will face serious challenges for reelection. Time will tell but I don;t think he will get a second term. A lot will depend on who the dems put forward in the primaries. I wonder who the right is going to put forward?

 

[George]

On the other hand, but he inherited a terrible economic situation and 2 wars all of which was not his fault. He also faces a minority political party in congress run by extreme radicals (the party of "No") totally opposed to any attempt to negotiate on practically any subject, resulting in one of the worst political gridlocks in our history.

You're kidding aren't you? You guys had total control of the Govt with a filibuster proof majority that meant Dems could pass any thing they wanted with out the Reps being able to do anything to stop them, all they had to do was keep there own Party members in line. The Radicals (Dems)ARE in control but couldn't get all thier radical agenda items through a Congress they controlled. Sure the Republicans are opposed to this, but they can't be blamed for the Dems not keeping thier members in line.
Republicans as radicals? HUH??? Most of the Leadership is the same Moderate/Left Bush Big Government types (Dem lite) that got the Republicans thrashed @ the last 2 elections. People have short memories. They forgot how Democrats spend & bought the lies about Dems being "fiscally responcible" & other nonsence retoric that spewed out of Dem mouths during the last election. If the regime wasn't bailing out the economy they'd still be spending big, just it would have been on govt dependancy & vote buying programs.

 

[mmarsh]

You're kidding aren't you? You guys had total control of the Govt with a filibuster proof majority that meant Dems could pass any thing they wanted with out the Reps being able to do anything to stop them, all they had to do was keep there own Party members in line. The Radicals (Dems)ARE in control but couldn't get all thier radical agenda items through a Congress they controlled. Sure the Republicans are opposed to this, but they can't be blamed for the Dems not keeping thier members in line.
Republicans as radicals? HUH??? Most of the Leadership is the same Moderate/Left Bush Big Government types (Dem lite) that got the Republicans thrashed @ the last 2 elections. People have short memories. They forgot how Democrats spend & bought the lies about Dems being "fiscally responcible" & other nonsence retoric that spewed out of Dem mouths during the last election. If the regime wasn't bailing out the economy they'd still be spending big, just it would have been on govt dependancy & vote buying programs.

No I am not kidding you, check your facts again. If the Dems are more Radical, What do you call the Tea-Party? Or the Birthers? Those loonies are on your side not the left. If the Dems could pass anything they wanted how come they got almost NOTHING passed? And what they did get passed was the extremely watered down version? How come the public option died? The filibuster-proof Congress didn't even last a single year...remember?

Before you criticize the Dems for spending, why don't you check to see when the Republicans last managed to balance a budget. For all their talk about fiscal responsible, history has proven the GOP to be even worse spenders than the Democrats. A fact FOX NEWS and RUSH likes to conveniently forget. The Dems used to be Tax and Spend, the GOP is even worse they are Borrow and spend. The fact is the GOP giving lessons on fiscal responsibility is like Pol Pot giving lectures on human rights.

Look at the Heath-care debate it dragged on for months because of stalling tactics done by your party. Look at Financial Reform, look at energy bill. Every single time the Dems tried to pass something meaningful you guys obstructed it.

Why do you think the GOP is called the party of "NO". Anything Obama proposes the radicals are automatically against like a knee-jerk reaction. Obama could propose curing cancer and world hunger and they would still be against it.

 

[Partisan]

I find the whole situation tragic, but then it has always been the same in my mother country - the politicians do not rule for the benefit of the people, but with an eye on another term, becasue that will help them to feather their nest, expand their networks and secure sinecures.

I do not know why we tolerate lobbyists as part of the process. They represent businesses, not people, but both in the UK & here in the US, everyone seems to be happy that big business has the ear of "their" elected representatives, whilst the voters get to suck the hindmost..

I have no real solution until we, the people, can get people we trust onto the inside to reform the system - but then they become part of the system. AS always big business will never lose, but you & I will be decimated, financially and socially, but worse we become pavlovs dogs for voting causes espoused by the mainstream media and forget to ask questions and demand answers - the biggest shame of all.

 

[Naddoður]

Many Europeans cheered when Barack Obama was elected president. Disdain for his predecessor ran so high that, even in Britain, pollsters found that George W. Bush was considered a greater threat to peace than Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Only Osama bin Laden outpolled him.

But President Obama hasn't lived up to European expectations. The disillusionment is showing. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has characterized him as weak. And at a U.N. Security Council meeting on nonproliferation, Mr. Sarkozy chided Mr. Obama with the reminder that "We live in a real world, not a virtual world."

Many Europeans, of course, still cling to the notion that Mr. Obama is "one of us." And certainly no American president has been friendlier to the political values of Europe.

But to Europe's dismay, Mr. Obama can't find the time to attend this year's annual U.S.-European Union Summit - something Mr. Bush always managed to do. Mr. Obama's decision to skip the summit offended Europeans, who saw it as a deliberate snub of the European Union - their favorite project to centralize government and internationalize the governance of human affairs great and small. Given Mr. Obama's embrace of such ideas domestically, Europeans were understandably puzzled that he would not rush to link arms with them in the summit.

Further souring relations was Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates' blast at much of Europe for dithering on defense. At a meeting of NATO officials, Mr. Gates said the "pacification of Europe" (meaning Europe's turning away from war and defense spending as necessary policies to keep the peace) was making it difficult for the allies to "operate and fight together."

"The demilitarization of Europe," he argued, "where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it, has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st."

Mr. Gates is absolutely right, but put that aside for a moment. The in-your-face nature of his words is striking. No Bush administration official - not even Donald Rumsfeld - ever publicly criticized Europe's lack of military spending and support for NATO so bluntly. Europeans hammered Mr. Rumsfeld merely for suggesting there was a "new" and "old" Europe. Now you have a secretary of defense arguing that European fecklessness threatens world peace.

It is one thing to start a quarrel with France or even the EU, but Mr. Obama has managed even to offend the British. Many commentators in the UK now accuse Mr. Obama of harboring anti-British sentiments. The State Department's recent announcement that we would remain neutral in the Falklands Islands dispute between the UK and Argentina has only fueled that perception.

Daniel Hannan, a British member of the European Parliament and former fan of Mr. Obama's, put it this way in the London Telegraph: "Look, Mr. President, I was one of the few conservatives who truly wanted you to succeed. I didn't mind the way you snubbed our PM: I mean, most of us feel the same way about him. I didn't mind about the mildly anti-British passages in your book, or the boxed set of DVDs or the returning of the bust of [Winston] Churchill. But this is different. This is serious. How would you feel if, the next time you found yourself at war with some tyrant, we were simply to issue a terse statement saying 'our position remains one of neutrality'?"

Mr. Hannan's growing concern over Mr. Obama's policies is shared by many on the opposite side of the European political spectrum. With regard to the Obama presidency, illusions are shattering across Europe. There, as here, the left's exaggerated hatred of Mr. Bush was matched only by their naive embrace of Mr. Obama. They now increasingly realize that although Mr. Obama may admire Europe's domestic polices on health care and energy, he has little practical use for the European Union's pretensions to world influence and leadership.
But he does seem willing to give them precisely what they've requested for years: A diminished U.S. role in the world. Mr. Obama is pulling back on the projection of American power. Leaving the Europeans to their own devices (and ignoring their summits) is merely part of that program.

European confusion is understandable. They expected that waning American power would mean less criticism from Washington and more European influence over U.S. policy. It didn't work out that way. Instead, administration officials are blasting European security policies in language that would make even Mr. Rumsfeld blush. On top of that, Mr. Obama was not even able to save Europe's favorite international agenda item - the climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

Europe may never get over its disdain for Mr. Bush. But they may someday come to realize that things were not as bad under Mr. Bush as they thought. At least he showed up to their meetings.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

In all fairness, then-President Clinton, a Democrat, proved to anyone with even a modicum of financial sense that his fiscal packets worked like a charm. By disproving the theory of trickle-down "Reaganomics," he solidified my belief that his party clearly sets the standard for sound spending and GDP/GDI/GDS outflow and inflow without drastically skyrocketing interest rates.

I have yet to see a Republican even come close to his sense of debt leverage. Sounds strange from a right winger like me, but I give credit where credit is due. But then again, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Anarchist with a lot of guns and a lot of training. I don't really need the government to help me live my life.

Anywho...

Before you lefties go jumping out of your mini-skirts screaming about "Birthers" or "Tea Party Loonies," I suggest you clean your own house:

Mr. Bush had what y'all refered to as "his war on oil-" an obvious attempt at outright slander and libel, as we have never liberated even a single drop of Iraqi oil.

You made fun of him because he talked "funny" being from Texas.

And rather than actually discuss a matter, you childishly, incessantly, predictably revert to "Rush," "Fox" and other "crazy right loons."

The disrespect from your side of the fence during Mr. Bush's two terms was unprecedented in its vileness and blatant untruths. It was "his" fault we went to war, and la tee da that it was the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS who signed the official deceleration to invade Iraq.



There are rude extremists on both sides of the fence. Don't go throwing rocks unless you want rocks thrown back at you. I'd like to think that everyone on this board can discuss the issues without reverting to the extremism nonsense of childish and immature political bickering.

The personal attacks on Mr. Obama are, as they were with Mr. Bush, unwarranted and only serve that no real argument exists where names are called.

My humble .02.

 

[HokieMSG]

Again concur with AZ. I too feel that Clinton did some pretty smart things for the economy. My only real issue with Clinton is that he LIED under oath and the Dems in congress didn't have the integrity to impeach him.

It is telling that when Obama was running for office, he told the media that his kids were off limits. The media has largely respected his wishes, but did not hesitate to slander Palin's kids or Bush's kids.

mmarsh, you criticise the right for stalling tactis on healthcare, energy and financial reform. It seems to me that healthcare reform is something nobody wants, energy reform will cause increases in everyones energy bills and financial reform is likely to be too little too late.

BTW marsh, the dems had only a year (your words) with the supermajority. They could have gotten a lot of things done that they wanted to. Wonder why they didn't?

A final note: Obama is the ONLY senator that had the stones to not vote for the war in the first place. The rest of the dems jumped on the bandwagon and despite of what they thought they voted for the war, then went on the record to say that they never approved of it (Hillary, Kerry, etc.) Damn Hypocrites.

 

[George]

In all fairness, then-President Clinton, a Democrat, proved to anyone with even a modicum of financial sense that his fiscal packets worked like a charm. By disproving the theory of trickle-down "Reaganomics," he solidified my belief that his party clearly sets the standard for sound spending and GDP/GDI/GDS outflow and inflow without drastically skyrocketing interest rates.

I have yet to see a Republican even come close to his sense of debt leverage. Sounds strange from a right winger like me, but I give credit where credit is due. But then again, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Anarchist with a lot of guns and a lot of training. I don't really need the government to help me live my life.

Anywho...

Before you lefties go jumping out of your mini-skirts screaming about "Birthers" or "Tea Party Loonies," I suggest you clean your own house:

Mr. Bush had what y'all refered to as "his war on oil-" an obvious attempt at outright slander and libel, as we have never liberated even a single drop of Iraqi oil.

You made fun of him because he talked "funny" being from Texas.

And rather than actually discuss a matter, you childishly, incessantly, predictably revert to "Rush," "Fox" and other "crazy right loons."

The disrespect from your side of the fence during Mr. Bush's two terms was unprecedented in its vileness and blatant untruths. It was "his" fault we went to war, and la tee da that it was the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS who signed the official deceleration to invade Iraq.



There are rude extremists on both sides of the fence. Don't go throwing rocks unless you want rocks thrown back at you. I'd like to think that everyone on this board can discuss the issues without reverting to the extremism nonsense of childish and immature political bickering.

The personal attacks on Mr. Obama are, as they were with Mr. Bush, unwarranted and only serve that no real argument exists where names are called.

My humble .02.

You're forgetting Clinton's 1st 2 years in Office. His Agenda was too radical for the Dem controlled Congress to pass. Remember ClintonCare? rememberr Clinton saying _____ Billion dollar deficits as far as we can see & I've worked as hard as I can & can't solve it! Clinton got the benefit of the Reagan economic boom & he resisted the balanced budged plan of the Republicans who took over the Congress as a result of Clinton's Agenda. Only after polling showed overwhelming support of the people for balanced budgets did he embrace the Rep. plans for a balanced budget. With a booming economy he was still able to bloat the buearocracy @ the same time. If the dems had retained controll of Congress the balanced budget wouldn't have happened

 

[mmarsh]

In all fairness, then-President Clinton, a Democrat, proved to anyone with even a modicum of financial sense that his fiscal packets worked like a charm. By disproving the theory of trickle-down "Reaganomics," he solidified my belief that his party clearly sets the standard for sound spending and GDP/GDI/GDS outflow and inflow without drastically skyrocketing interest rates.

I have yet to see a Republican even come close to his sense of debt leverage. Sounds strange from a right winger like me, but I give credit where credit is due. But then again, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an Anarchist with a lot of guns and a lot of training. I don't really need the government to help me live my life.

Anywho...

Before you lefties go jumping out of your mini-skirts screaming about "Birthers" or "Tea Party Loonies," I suggest you clean your own house:

Mr. Bush had what y'all refered to as "his war on oil-" an obvious attempt at outright slander and libel, as we have never liberated even a single drop of Iraqi oil.

You made fun of him because he talked "funny" being from Texas.

And rather than actually discuss a matter, you childishly, incessantly, predictably revert to "Rush," "Fox" and other "crazy right loons."

The disrespect from your side of the fence during Mr. Bush's two terms was unprecedented in its vileness and blatant untruths. It was "his" fault we went to war, and la tee da that it was the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS who signed the official deceleration to invade Iraq.



There are rude extremists on both sides of the fence. Don't go throwing rocks unless you want rocks thrown back at you. I'd like to think that everyone on this board can discuss the issues without reverting to the extremism nonsense of childish and immature political bickering.

The personal attacks on Mr. Obama are, as they were with Mr. Bush, unwarranted and only serve that no real argument exists where names are called.

My humble .02.

Sry AZ, but your mistaken on most counts.

1. Iraq. The War was about who gets the oil, you cannot tell me with a straight fact that the 2nd largest untapped oil reserve in the world was not a reason. I'll grant you it wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was a big one. Remember both the P and VP at the time were both oilman. Hardly a coincidence...

The war in Iraq wasn't about who gets the oil. Its was about controlling the oil supply. Since most of that oil goes to China and Europe, if the US were in control of it they would have significant leverage over these countries. The US is almost-self sufficient on oil, what the US wanted was to be free of the OPEC monopoly on World oil supply by being able to control the world supply itself.

2. Sorry but the Iraq war was voted on by a REPUBLICAN congress. Check the timeline, The Democrats only regained control of Congress at the end of 2006, the Iraq war declarations were in 2002, and in 2002 the GOP was in charge. The Democrats who supported the war were either cowards or political opportunists, but half the Dems voted against the Iraq invasion.

The Bush Administration got treated the way it deserved. They repeatedly lied, they held secrets, they were nasty and vindictive to anyone who disagreed with them. In short they created a toxic atmosphere, and thats exactly how they got treated in return.

3. We didnt make fun of Bush's accent, all Americans have an accent. I'm from NYC, we have accents from all the 5 boroughs in NY. We made fun of the absolutely stupid and embarrassing things he said and did. How can you NOT laugh at a president who is constantly putting his foot in his mouth? I have a whole list of Bushisms. You had the choice of laughing or crying.

4. Rush, Fox, etc. I am sorry but the right-wing rent-a-mouths is simply poison. The right is responsible for the crap it puts on the airways, its not the fault of the left if they get hammered for the stupid and untrue things it says afterwards. For example, a few days ago Rush said it was preferable for undernourished/starving children in America to dumpster dive outside fast-foods than for their parents to accept the government aid to feed their kids. You tell me, is that heartless? brainless? or is that the oxycodin talking again?

You have a daughter AZ am I correct? If you lost your job and couldn't put food on the table (a common situation these days) how would you like a fat, middle-aged, drug-ridden old fool who has never been a parent tell you that your kids are better off seeking food in the digging in the garbage?

Everyone on the right knows Rush is an ass, but they are so chickensh** they don't have the balls to stand up to him.

Yes there are Extremists on both sides of the aisle, but there is a big difference. The left doesnt let the far-left anywhere near real power. People like the 911 truthers and the other conspiracy nuts. What power do they have? ZERO. Same with the extreme liberal big mouths like Mike Moore. they have no influence in politics. On the other hand, all the republicans are lined up to kiss the a** of the tea-party.

I have no problems with people criticizing Obama, I criticize him too. But at least criticize on real things, not on lies, or worse batsh** crazy conspiracies.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

Sry AZ, but your mistaken on most counts.

1. Iraq. The War was about who gets the oil, you cannot tell me with a straight fact that the 2nd largest untapped oil reserve in the world was not a reason. I'll grant you it wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was a big one. Remember both the P and VP at the time were both oilman. Hardly a coincidence...

The war in Iraq wasn't about who gets the oil. Its was about controlling the oil supply. Since most of that oil goes to China and Europe, if the US were in control of it they would have significant leverage over these countries. The US is almost-self sufficient on oil, what the US wanted was to be free of the OPEC monopoly on World oil supply by being able to control the world supply itself.

2. Sorry but the Iraq war was voted on by a REPUBLICAN congress. Check the timeline, The Democrats only regained control of Congress at the end of 2006, the Iraq war declarations were in 2002, and in 2002 the GOP was in charge. The Democrats who supported the war were either cowards or political opportunists, but half the Dems voted against the Iraq invasion.

The Bush Administration got treated the way it deserved. They repeatedly lied, they held secrets, they were nasty and vindictive to anyone who disagreed with them. In short they created a toxic atmosphere, and thats exactly how they got treated in return.

3. We didnt make fun of Bush's accent, all Americans have an accent. I'm from NYC, we have accents from all the 5 boroughs in NY. We made fun of the absolutely stupid and embarrassing things he said and did. How can you NOT laugh at a president who is constantly putting his foot in his mouth? I have a whole list of Bushisms. You had the choice of laughing or crying.

4. Rush, Fox, etc. I am sorry but the right-wing rent-a-mouths is simply poison. The right is responsible for the crap it puts on the airways, its not the fault of the left if they get hammered for the stupid and untrue things it says afterwards. For example, a few days ago Rush said it was preferable for undernourished/starving children in America to dumpster dive outside fast-foods than for their parents to accept the government aid to feed their kids. You tell me, is that heartless? brainless? or is that the oxycodin talking again?

You have a daughter AZ am I correct? If you lost your job and couldn't put food on the table (a common situation these days) how would you like a fat, middle-aged, drug-ridden old fool who has never been a parent tell you that your kids are better off seeking food in the digging in the garbage?

Everyone on the right knows Rush is an ass, but they are so chickensh** they don't have the balls to stand up to him.

Yes there are Extremists on both sides of the aisle, but there is a big difference. The left doesnt let the far-left anywhere near real power. People like the 911 truthers and the other conspiracy nuts. What power do they have? ZERO. Same with the extreme liberal big mouths like Mike Moore. they have no influence in politics. On the other hand, all the republicans are lined up to kiss the a** of the tea-party.

I have no problems with people criticizing Obama, I criticize him too. But at least criticize on real things, not on lies, or worse batsh** crazy conspiracies.

Oh, here we GO...

1. So, my good sir, you tell me WHO controls the oil right this very minute compared to who controlled the oil day one after "liberation." And make certain you provide a REAL, CREDIBLE source.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.


2. Sorry, hoss, but you're arguing a TOTAL Senate V. House vote. It don't work that way. Again, the DEMOCRATS...

Well, here you go:



Party summary

[edit] Senate


Party standings on the opening day of the 102nd Congress 56 Democratic Senators 44 Republican Senators



Party (Shading indicates majority caucus)
Total



Democratic Republican Vacant End of previous Congress 55 45 100 0
Begin 56 44 100 0 End 57 43 FInal voting share 57% 43%

Beginning of next Congress 57 43 100 0 [edit] House of Representatives

Affiliation Members Voting
share Democratic Party 270 62.1% Republican Party 164 37.7% Independent 1 0.2% Total 435 [edit] Officers

[edit] Senate

Office Officer Party State President of the Senate Dan Quayle Republican Indiana President pro tempore Robert Byrd Democratic West Virginia [edit] Majority (Democratic) leadership

Office Officer Party State Majority Leader George Mitchell Maine Majority Whip Wendell Ford Kentucky


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/102nd_United_States_Congress



Let's discuss the Obamanisms, then, shall we?

Would you like to start with the nation having 57 states he's already visited (Beaverton, Oregon), the greatness of UPS versus the Post Office when it comes to health care reform (New Hampshire), or the fact that our revered "Commander IN CHIEF" doesn't know how to even pronounce "Corpsman" (Washington, DC)?

Well, hell, here, have a look for yourself. A good couple hours of raucous laughter at who you all expressed "spoke and articulated like none before him..." And how right you were! I dropped out of 7th grade, yet I can pronounce military titles and I know how many states we have.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/top-10-obama-quotes.htm



And you are, of course, absolutely right... because the left doesn't have Oberman or any of the other Anti-American, socialist blame-gamers that cannot possibly say a positive thing about anyone not out there protesting soldiers' funerals in front of their already-grief stricken parents, right?

Oh, and there are NO extreme left-wingers in any power positions because y'all hold therm all back. Nope.

Mrs. Nancy "We won, we can do what we want!" Pelosi, Ms. Diane "I don't care what the Second Amendment says!" Feinstein, and let's not forget our very own Barbara "Mr. Obama will help pay your taxes!" Boxer.

Because these far left extremists, like Clinton, Kerry and SO many others who refuse to support Constitutional law under the auspice that the Constitution is "An outdated piece of paper made for farmers with slaves..." don't hold any seats in any office, do they?

But, yeah, talk radio and television, all of which are purported as ENTERTAINMENT, are at the same level as law- and policy-makers in Cabinet positions fighting to take personal rights away because they are "outdated..."



I criticize ANY politician. And I criticize anyone who cannot even get their facts straight in order to play fair. Why should you? You have the far-right-always-right-Rush-driven media on your side, yes?

Like I said, of stones, glass houses, and throwing arms...

 

[George]

Rush-dumpster diving You guy forgett about the Libs who, in thier compasion in the last recession, came up with a film on healthy dumpster diving & a program to help the homeless by....giving them a job? ...umm... no, they decided to give them a personally owned shopping cart of thier very own. Yall can't catch satire when you hear it.

 

[mmarsh]

AZ

Its common sense. The US Government.

1. I am not talking puppet governments, or powers that exist on paper or politicians speeches. I am talking about real power. Do you honestly think if the Iraqis decided that they wanted Iran to exploit their oil the USA would let them? I HIGHLY doubt it. The real power in Iraq is the 122,000 US troops stationed over there. I can prove this very easily: How many times have the Iraqis asked us to leave Iraq and we refused? By my recollection, at least 3 times. That doesn't sound like the Iraqis own their own country does it?

And I am sure, based on the fact that we build the current Iraqi government out of wet noodles, that the moment the US does pull out the current Iraqi government doesn't last a year.

We might want to kid ourselves to say the Iraqis run their own country (and everything in it) but thats simply an self-illusion. We might have create an iraqi president and a Iraqi oil industry, but there is always someone puling the strings. Make no mistake about it, the US would have been idiotic to do it any other way.

2. Here is the actually Breakdown of the October 2 2002 Iraq Resolution:

House GOP 215 Ayes 6 Nays 2 Absent
House Dems 87 Ayes 126 Nays 1 Absent

Senate GOP 48 Ayes 1 Nays
House Dems 29 Ayes 21 Nays

So we have a House that has 223 Republicans and 214 Dems. GOP controlled House

And the Senate GOP 49-50 Dems and 1 Independent who was a former Republican (Jim Jeffords).

Sorry I don't call that Democratic control. Yes Some Democrats voted for it and I wish to Christ they hadn't, but the people who wanted this was the right-wing the numbers don't lie. Trying to shift the blame for Iraq to the Democrats is simply history revisionism.

3. Yes, Obama has said some silly things too. You want to joke about it go right ahead, knock yourself out. I have no objections. But Nobody beats Bushisms, thats in a league of its own in Quality and Quantity.

4. Have you listened to Olbermann or Maddow? I do. Yes their Liberals, yes they don't like the rightwing no question. But here's the catch:

A. They don't claim to be fair and balanced, nor do they claim to be a news channel. They have both stated right off the bat theirs is an opinion show. They *DO* allow conservatives an equal opportunity to present their case without rudeness, insults, cutting off their Mic, quoting out of context, or manipulating the interview to make it appear what it isn't.

B. Secondly, their facts are pretty spot-on. When they do make a mistake (which is rare) they offer a retraction. When the make a promise they keep it. When Mancow agreed to be waterboarded and Olberman agreed to pay $1000 to Charity for every sec he could withstand being waterboarded. Olbermann congradulated him for having the balls Sean Hannity didnt have and gladly wrote the check.

Neither actually make the ridiculous and so far-fetched statements you hear from Rush and FOX. The fact is Rush and FOX take their listeners for complete morons because most of them are extremely ignorant people who will believe whatever they are told as long as it suits their agenda.

So YES they have an agenda, but its an agenda thats backed up with a plausible argument. Its not whatever crap they pull out of their a**.

And BTW, neither one is all that pleased with Obama. Something else you dont here from the rightwing. They almost never criticize their own.

5. If you think Pelosi and Boxer are the extremely left, then you haven't met the extreme left. Another false statement from right-wing media is all liberals = the extreme left. Thats like saying all conservatives are neocons.

Yes they are Liberals but they are not the extreme left. An easy example: In 2008 the extreme left wanted Bush and Cheney impeached. Pelosi said NO. Most leftwingers think Pelosi is not liberal enough.

Clinton is a far-left extremist? Hes not even a liberal! Clinton was a Moderate Democrat who at the end of his term was shifting more and more to the right. Kerry was more Liberal, but he wasnt as liberal as others in the senate like Kennedy or Feingold.

Ill repeat myself, all republicans see the Dems as "FAR LEFT". They dont bother to actually learn anything about them. I have heard people call Blanche Lincoln "a liberal". Shes more conservative on some issues than the real conservatives.

 

[mmarsh]

Again concur with AZ. I too feel that Clinton did some pretty smart things for the economy. My only real issue with Clinton is that he LIED under oath and the Dems in congress didn't have the integrity to impeach him.

It is telling that when Obama was running for office, he told the media that his kids were off limits. The media has largely respected his wishes, but did not hesitate to slander Palin's kids or Bush's kids.

mmarsh, you criticise the right for stalling tactis on healthcare, energy and financial reform. It seems to me that healthcare reform is something nobody wants, energy reform will cause increases in everyones energy bills and financial reform is likely to be too little too late.

BTW marsh, the dems had only a year (your words) with the supermajority. They could have gotten a lot of things done that they wanted to. Wonder why they didn't?

A final note: Obama is the ONLY senator that had the stones to not vote for the war in the first place. The rest of the dems jumped on the bandwagon and despite of what they thought they voted for the war, then went on the record to say that they never approved of it (Hillary, Kerry, etc.) Damn Hypocrites.

He lied under oath over a trivial personal affair that nobody cared about except for a small group of radicals out to get him on *something*. They couldn't get him on Whitewater so this was their best shot. On the beltway this is called "Headhunting".

What it did show was that its not wise for presidents to testify under oath at all because the smallest thing (like a hummer) can come back to bite them in the ass. Bush an Cheney learned this well, which is why they insisted on testifying NOT under oath when it came under the Plame Affair, 9-11 or WMD investigations. That way they could lie and not get busted for it.

When you say the Media, I assume you mean the news channals. Who in the Media slandered Palin's kids or the Bush's? Palin uses her kids to push her candidacy, so if anyone was exploiting Palins kids it was Palin herself.

Both Bush's and Palin's children got themselves in trouble, the media didn't slander them. They didn't get Bristol pregnant and they didn't get the Bushes busted for using a fake ID. Its up to them to show some personal responsibility.

Obama didn't they use the supermajority because he was trying to get bipartisanship. He could have pulled the trigger but he preferred to make a deal with the GOP, even after it was abundantly clear they were going to oppose him no matter what. The far-left was actually quite angry at Obama for not pulling the trigger. I personally feel Obama squandered a big opportunity, we could have got a much better bill had he shown a little balls.

Ill credit Bush for that, he was decisive once he made up his mind, the only problem was he was wrong most of the time. I wish Obama would be more authoritative and not try and please everybody, espicially the rightwing who has shown they are not interested in making deals.

As for the Rest: Actually Obama wasn't a senator during the Iraq War vote. He didn't get elected until 2005, that vote was in 2002. Its easy to say He was against it now, but he's is a politican, who really knows? Politicans don't always vote for what they believe in. Like the liberals, I was furious with the Democrats like Kerry and Clinton who in my opinion knew the Iraq war was wrong (I was against it from day 1) and lacked the guts to stand up for what they believed in. They put their political careers ahead of what was right. I don't like either one of them, and its why I against Clinton in the primaries.

MODS: Sorry for double post, it was getting too long.

 

[A Can of Man]

Folks who think regular Democrats obviously suffer from a lack of reference. They're quite center left. I don't think there is a very large far left movement in the United States right now.

Funny thing: The South Korean left and the American right have a lot in common. I've never supported the South Korean left so for the same reasons I find it hard to support the American right, ironically for very similar reasons.

 

[AZ_Infantry]

It has absolutely ZERO to do with Dem v. Rep.

It is impossible to hold an intelligent conversation on this subject with anyone who wishes to use political monikers as a standard.

Politicians do not give two bits what party they represent, and they don't care what party you're silly enough to align yourself with. A politician's power, their above-the-law standards, stem from political divisiveness. So if you're a Republican, you're always part of the bigger problem and never part of the solution. Same with Democrats.

I always get a kick out of watching people bicker politics all the while being played the complete fool for taking any side, period. The lack of free, self-thought in this country (and abroad) is just about enough to turn my stomach with all this, "My guy is better than your guy" stuff.

Sheep dip.

Your guy is the same, exact crook "my" guy is. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... do you really think any of these people are altruistic, selfless individuals sacrificing the "good life" in order to take a position of servitude to the American people for the greater good of the Republic?

It always makes me sigh--and weep for my children--when I see a group of mature, intelligent men and women throw out every modicum of common sense to argue for someone who has never been on their side in the first place...

:crybaby:

 

[HokieMSG]

He lied under oath over a trivial personal affair that nobody cared about except for a small group of radicals out to get him on *something*. They couldn't get him on Whitewater so this was their best shot. On the beltway this is called "Headhunting".

The fact that he lied under oath is EXACTLY my point.
Do I care that he got a hummer in the oval office. Nope.
Do I think many other presidents have done it. Absolutely.
Does it matter that it had nothing to do with national security. Not a bit.
Did his testimony completely undermine his credability. You betcha.

What it did show was that its not wise for presidents to testify under oath at all because the smallest thing (like a hummer) can come back to bite them in the ass. Bush an Cheney learned this well, which is why they insisted on testifying NOT under oath when it came under the Plame Affair, 9-11 or WMD investigations. That way they could lie and not get busted for it.

Exactly. I'm very surprised that he testified.

1. I am not talking puppet governments, or powers that exist on paper or politicians speeches. I am talking about real power. Do you honestly think if the Iraqis decided that they wanted Iran to exploit their oil the USA would let them? I HIGHLY doubt it. The real power in Iraq is the 122,000 US troops stationed over there. I can prove this very easily: How many times have the Iraqis asked us to leave Iraq and we refused? By my recollection, at least 3 times. That doesn't sound like the Iraqis own their own country does it?

I have been there (June 2009 - Feb 2010) and they only asked us to leave after we stopped giving them EVERYTHING. They were willing to tolerate our presence as long as we gave them what they asked for. Now that we have stopped, they have asked us to GTFO.