Obama, trying to keep his job...

Godfather.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t3

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01 ... ate-union/

just trying to be fair here.


Godfather.

he still stands

I will be hand-planing a table (in progress) and drinking a glass of red wine tonight.

Godfather.

it will be interesting to listen to him then read the reviews the following day, in my own opinion he has little to no chance of being reelected, he dosen't have time to pull out a hat trick to save himself.

Godfather.

Go Beavers

Wont be too hard to beat Romney/Gingrich.

josevolution

I think he has a very good chance to win again considering what garbage the GOP has put forth ....oh and i'm being fair

JTH

George Bush's reelection chances were nonexistent in January of '04. How'd that turn out?

brianlux

he still stands wrote:

I will be hand-planing a table (in progress) and drinking a glass of red wine tonight.

Cheers. Clink! (I'll get on the skinny on it later here )

Jeanwah

josevolution wrote:

I think he has a very good chance to win again considering what garbage the GOP has put forth ....oh and i'm being fair

I think it's almost a for sure thing. The Republicans are laughable.

At the same time, it doesn't matter... because it's all the same system!! Nothing changes!

pandora

He's just so likable and now he sings too

gives a great speech ... I am not seeing a GOP candidate that is a package yet


I'm of the opinion that a President should have a minimum of six years...
then not many, but the greats, would last for 12.

So, not voting along party lines, I seem to more times than not, vote for the man in office...
four just doesn't do it.

Like I said Biz is happening ... much improvement we are seeing in our small shop.

MookiesLaw

JTH wrote:

George Bush's reelection chances were nonexistent in January of '04. How'd that turn out?

And likely the same people giving a second chance to President Hope and Change you can choke on were likely those critical of Bush's second term.

Shocking isn't it?

Prince Of Dorkness

AT this point Barack Obama could take a big steaming crap on the bible and wipe his ass with the American flag while screwing the Statue of Liberty up the tail pipe and he could beat any of the four candidates in the running.

The only one who isn't a vile monster is Ron Paul and most Republicans would rather elect Obama than Ron Paul.

This is already over.

I'm going on vacation... call me in December.

JTH

MookiesLaw wrote:

And likely the same people giving a second chance to President Hope and Change you can choke on were likely those critical of Bush's second term.

Shocking isn't it?

I wasn't saying anything about his second term. I was just saying that at this time 8 years ago, given the choice of George W. Bush or Anyone But Bush, ABB was the clear favorite but in November of '04, GWB was the actual winner.

drinkbigredinstead

JTH wrote:

MookiesLaw wrote:

And likely the same people giving a second chance to President Hope and Change you can choke on were likely those critical of Bush's second term.

Shocking isn't it?

I wasn't saying anything about his second term. I was just saying that at this time 8 years ago, given the choice of George W. Bush or Anyone But Bush, ABB was the clear favorite but in November of '04, GWB was the actual winner.

Not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize, which he earned by ...um....not being Bush.

RW81233

Godfather. wrote:

it will be interesting to listen to him then read the reviews the following day, in my own opinion he has little to no chance of being reelected, he dosen't have time to pull out a hat trick to save himself.

Godfather.

in what world does he have little to no chance of reelection? his whole strategy has been brilliant this time around...do shit in the white house (or not), and let the racism, sexism, homophobia, and class ignorance seep out of each and every republican candidate. shockingly (or not) that shit has worked.

JonnyPistachio

drinkbigredinstead wrote:

JTH wrote:

MookiesLaw wrote:

And likely the same people giving a second chance to President Hope and Change you can choke on were likely those critical of Bush's second term.

Shocking isn't it?

I wasn't saying anything about his second term. I was just saying that at this time 8 years ago, given the choice of George W. Bush or Anyone But Bush, ABB was the clear favorite but in November of '04, GWB was the actual winner.

Not to mention the Nobel Peace Prize, which he earned by ...um....not being Bush.

arq

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

AT this point Barack Obama could take a big steaming crap on the bible and wipe his ass with the American flag while screwing the Statue of Liberty up the tail pipe and he could beat any of the four candidates in the running.

The only one who isn't a vile monster is Ron Paul and most Republicans would rather elect Obama than Ron Paul.

This is already over.

I'm going on vacation... call me in December.

This!

Is umbelievable how the Rep candidates are like caricatures of all what is wrong in politics... I'm not saying Obama is any good but the GOP is a sad joke with a bad punch line told at a funeral...

EdsonNascimento

Obama's electibility will be determined by how the economy is PERCEIVED to be doing in October. Nothing before matters (other than obviously, changing that perception sooner would obviously, help, but if it tanks in October, he's done). We are a short term memory society, and it's the Economy Stupid is correct other than during war. The opponent matters very little.

Prince Of Dorkness

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Obama's electibility will be determined by how the economy is PERCEIVED to be doing in October.

honestly... I think that would only be true if he wasn't running against one of the Three Stooges and Leslie Jordan.

The economy could drop off the end of the earth and people will still vote for him over any of the current challengers. I wish things were different because I wish I could challenge him to be better... although to be honest, after last night I'm not sure he could DO any better under the circumstances.

josevolution

Jeanwah wrote:

josevolution wrote:

I think he has a very good chance to win again considering what garbage the GOP has put forth ....oh and i'm being fair

I think it's almost a for sure thing. The Republicans are laughable.

At the same time, it doesn't matter... because it's all the same system!! Nothing changes!

Totally agree !!

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

AT this point Barack Obama could take a big steaming crap on the bible and wipe his ass with the American flag while screwing the Statue of Liberty up the tail pipe and he could beat any of the four candidates in the running.

The only one who isn't a vile monster is Ron Paul and most Republicans would rather elect Obama than Ron Paul.

This is already over.

I'm going on vacation... call me in December.

POD ENDORSES RON PAUL

...in other news...dogs and cats have been spotted living together

in all reality it is sad that everything you said is about to come true. I will not support another GOP candidate in the general election...they are counting on the anti Obama vote and I don't think that is strong enough of a motivator to get people to support these knuckle heads.

Prince Of Dorkness

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The only one who isn't a vile monster is Ron Paul

POD ENDORSES RON PAUL

Isn't it sad that "isn't a vile monster" can actually be considered an endorsement? :twisted:

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The only one who isn't a vile monster is Ron Paul

POD ENDORSES RON PAUL

Isn't it sad that "isn't a vile monster" can actually be considered an endorsement? :twisted:

for some of the nonsense around here that gets said about Paul, I will take it

JonnyPistachio

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

The only one who isn't a vile monster is Ron Paul

POD ENDORSES RON PAUL

Isn't it sad that "isn't a vile monster" can actually be considered an endorsement? :twisted:

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Being from Canada and relatively out of touch with current US political sentiments, can somebody take a moment to sincerely educate me.

I was under the impression the following statements are legitimate:

1. The current US economy must be attributed to the previous regime. Obama took over a rapidly sinking ship and the problems are much deeper than those which can be fixed in one presidential term.

2. The current military situation in the middle east is a result of the previous regime. Obama inherited an ill-conceived, aggressive military plan which was played out on a massive scale and did not feature an exit strategy, measurable objectives or a solid timeline.

3. George Bush's 8 year presidency was self-serving and a bit of an embarrassment, whereas Obama's has reflected a level of care for all.

Are these statements true? Why is Obama labelled as ineffective?

Thanks.

EdsonNascimento

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Being from Canada and relatively out of touch with current US political sentiments, can somebody take a moment to sincerely educate me.

I was under the impression the following statements are legitimate:

1. The current US economy must be attributed to the previous regime. Obama took over a rapidly sinking ship and the problems are much deeper than those which can be fixed in one presidential term.

2. The current military situation in the middle east is a result of the previous regime. Obama inherited an ill-conceived, aggressive military plan which was played out on a massive scale and did not feature an exit strategy, measurable objectives or a solid timeline.

3. George Bush's 8 year presidency was self-serving and a bit of an embarrassment, whereas Obama's has reflected a level of care for all.

Are these statements true? Why is Obama labelled as ineffective?

Thanks.

Not true. Some semblences -

1) Yes, the previous administration would have an impact on what the next takes over. However, how deep it became is all Obama

2) the characterization is yours (and a lot of people's). But, that is opinion and not fact. Obama still continued those policies. And much, much longer than he promised (Quantamo anyone?)

3) Again, opinion not fact. Especially the last part which isn't even a valid opinion.

He is labeled that way because he is. Actually, he's not labeled as ineffective. He's labeled as incompetent. Get that right.

chadwick

josevolution wrote:

I think he has a very good chance to win again considering what garbage the GOP has put forth ....oh and i'm being fair

yeah he will win again. 2nd round here we come. and like i said before. if newt wins i move to Cuba

josevolution

chadwick wrote:

josevolution wrote:

I think he has a very good chance to win again considering what garbage the GOP has put forth ....oh and i'm being fair

yeah he will win again. 2nd round here we come. and like i said before. if newt wins i move to Cuba

Yeah no doubt but forget cuba come down to Chile with me free wine and great weather

chadwick

josevolution wrote:

chadwick wrote:

josevolution wrote:

I think he has a very good chance to win again considering what garbage the GOP has put forth ....oh and i'm being fair

yeah he will win again. 2nd round here we come. and like i said before. if newt wins i move to Cuba

Yeah no doubt but forget cuba come down to Chile with me free wine and great weather

sounds great to me, dude. i would never allow myself to be under newt gingrich's bullshit. he's gotta be the falsest prick out there

inmytree

EdsonNascimento wrote:

He is labeled that way because he is. Actually, he's not labeled as ineffective. He's labeled as incompetent. Get that right.

opinion, not fact....

get it right...

Thirty Bills Unpaid

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Being from Canada and relatively out of touch with current US political sentiments, can somebody take a moment to sincerely educate me.

I was under the impression the following statements are legitimate:

1. The current US economy must be attributed to the previous regime. Obama took over a rapidly sinking ship and the problems are much deeper than those which can be fixed in one presidential term.

2. The current military situation in the middle east is a result of the previous regime. Obama inherited an ill-conceived, aggressive military plan which was played out on a massive scale and did not feature an exit strategy, measurable objectives or a solid timeline.

3. George Bush's 8 year presidency was self-serving and a bit of an embarrassment, whereas Obama's has reflected a level of care for all.

Are these statements true? Why is Obama labelled as ineffective?

Thanks.

Not true. Some semblences -

1) Yes, the previous administration would have an impact on what the next takes over. However, how deep it became is all Obama

2) the characterization is yours (and a lot of people's). But, that is opinion and not fact. Obama still continued those policies. And much, much longer than he promised (Quantamo anyone?)

3) Again, opinion not fact. Especially the last part which isn't even a valid opinion.

He is labeled that way because he is. Actually, he's not labeled as ineffective. He's labeled as incompetent. Get that right.

Edson... I appreciate the time you took to respond to me, but I was looking for a little more. For example, you made mention that Obama is 'incompetent'. Can you give me an example of his leadership that might support such a claim?

Further, I think it is fair to state that the economic issues facing your country are deep problems that took root under Bush's leadership. Implementing change that can reverse the spiraling course the economy had been set for is a massive challenge where- perhaps unfairly- blaming Obama might be an easy thing to do. Is there an answer you can provide that would solve the economic problems your country faces?

As well, what is consensus for how should Obama proceed in managing middle east policies right now that meet past, current, and future objectives?

Lastly, is there such a thing as an invalid opinion?

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Being from Canada and relatively out of touch with current US political sentiments, can somebody take a moment to sincerely educate me.

I was under the impression the following statements are legitimate:

1. The current US economy must be attributed to the previous regime. Obama took over a rapidly sinking ship and the problems are much deeper than those which can be fixed in one presidential term.

2. The current military situation in the middle east is a result of the previous regime. Obama inherited an ill-conceived, aggressive military plan which was played out on a massive scale and did not feature an exit strategy, measurable objectives or a solid timeline.

3. George Bush's 8 year presidency was self-serving and a bit of an embarrassment, whereas Obama's has reflected a level of care for all.

Are these statements true? Why is Obama labelled as ineffective?

Thanks.

Not true. Some semblences -

1) Yes, the previous administration would have an impact on what the next takes over. However, how deep it became is all Obama

2) the characterization is yours (and a lot of people's). But, that is opinion and not fact. Obama still continued those policies. And much, much longer than he promised (Quantamo anyone?)

3) Again, opinion not fact. Especially the last part which isn't even a valid opinion.

He is labeled that way because he is. Actually, he's not labeled as ineffective. He's labeled as incompetent. Get that right.

I wouldn't be so quick to disregard a foreigners opinion. Often, their stance comes across as more objective as a lot of the partisan stuff is filtered out. Certainly, I would give more weight to their opinion on Bush Jr.'s international relations failings.

History will label George Bush as one of the worst, and Obama as someone who had to clean up the steaming pile left behind. It'll take another 10-15 years to right Bush's wrongs.