Obama, trying to keep his job...

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.

EdsonNascimento

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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?

Yes, there is such a thing. Just as there are stupid questions (not yours, just making a point).

This is how I say he is incompetent - the number of people with jobs today is less than the number 3 years ago. You can say new jobless claims are down, and it doesn't mean a whole lot (just like saying they are up is meaningless at this point). In the economy he's now created, folks give up. So, the truest measure of the economy is how many people are actually working. That is lower now than when Bush left office (I am not making an argument for how good or bad Bush was, but the comparison is startling). So, Obama and the media change the story and the focus, and continue to blame past ghosts. The problem is we are doing worse now than 3 years ago. The basic measures of prosperity in terms of individual and collectively is who is working. And his programs simply have not worked. He had 2 years with a democratic legislature and he squandered it geting an equally ineffectual health care bill passed (not arguing the NEED for broader health care coverage. But, this clearly did not only NOT do that, it probably hampered it for years to come). So, he only has himself to blame for losing that power.

Anyone voting for him in the next election is doing it foolishly. It's the evil I know premise. Why not try something different? This is clearly not working. If anything, activists should be waiting for him to leave. Instead, they will rationalize why the Republican nominee is no good (which, might in fact be correct. But, we KNOW this administration is ineffectual).

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

Wow!! What does this have to do with his a foreigner? I don't validate or invalidate it on that basis. I listen to his suppositions, and make my judgment that way. Where he comes from is irrelevant. Yes, it gives him a different point of view. But, that doesn't make it any better or worse. His views are what they are. And labeling him or his comments doesn't do anyone any good.

And, you have that backward. I think history will be kinder to Bush and less so for Obama. I won't go into why, as that will derail this thread (it's not about Bush. It's about Obama). And neither of us really know the answer to that question anyway.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

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.

Wow!! What does this have to do with his a foreigner? I don't validate or invalidate it on that basis. I listen to his suppositions, and make my judgment that way. Where he comes from is irrelevant. Yes, it gives him a different point of view. But, that doesn't make it any better or worse. His views are what they are. And labeling him or his comments doesn't do anyone any good.

And, you have that backward. I think history will be kinder to Bush and less so for Obama. I won't go into why, as that will derail this thread (it's not about Bush. It's about Obama). And neither of us really know the answer to that question anyway.

I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.

In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.

In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.

You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.

Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.

Missed your last part - what's a better indicator? Most on welfare/unemployment/gov't dole?

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.

In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.

You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.

Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.

What Reagan got was 100 times worse? Please. I think you're on your own with that opinion.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

I probably could've worded that differently. I wasn't saying you were invalidating based on him being a foreigner, but I was saying don't be so quick to disregard it. There's value in an outsiders perspective and where there come from is very relevant.

In another response, you say that "it's the economy he's now created". How does an economy exist in four or eight year chunks. There's too many variables that play our over the short term and long term and I think you're minimizing Bush's economy thinking that it could've been corrected in 3 years. Plus, I think you're picking the number of people with jobs as the only indicator of a good economy in order to fit your agenda.

You are right. Economies don't just exist in nice little 4 (or 8) year periods. What Reagan took over from Carter was 100 times worse than what Obama took over. Reagan corrected the ship in 2 years. Obama has grounded the fucking thing. This is now HIS economy.

Nobody's saying it should be all corrected. But, it should at least be headed in the right direction.

What Reagan got was 100 times worse? Please. I think you're on your own with that opinion.

No. That is fact. They created a term for what Carter did - STAGFLATION!!!! A new word!!! Just so they could describe the never before seen and impossible to create situation where prices are rising AND interest rates are going through the roof. Toss in a little oil embargo and hostage crisis, and we were doing a-ok!!! The only thing he didn't do is get nuclear bombs pointed at us from a few hundred miles away (a Kennedy special!).

Any discussion of worst President and worst economy and worst national psyche begins and ends with the Peanut Farmer.

RW81233

I'm pretty confident in stating that anyone who thinks what Reagan did to our economy was a success for the United States as a whole (not just the top end) has very little understanding of economics. Despite the failure of neoliberalism to provide for the many it is so pervasive that even our "socialist/marxist/communist" (whichever random one people use to demean the president without saying they hate him because he's black, because, in America being communist is equally as bad as being black...j/k...mostly) turns to market-based solutions to market-based problems. This is why people on the left are frustrated with Obama, because while he's doing all this stuff to keep his job, we aren't getting the socialist/marxist/communist black president we had hoped for. Still...at least he's not Mitt/Newt/Ron.

On a side note what's the over under in number of Presidential debates that it will take before the Republican candidate drops his first n-bomb in reference to Obama?

RW81233

Also stagflation actually began under Nixon...

EdsonNascimento

RW81233 wrote:

I'm pretty confident in stating that anyone who thinks what Reagan did to our economy was a success for the United States as a whole (not just the top end) has very little understanding of economics. Despite the failure of neoliberalism to provide for the many it is so pervasive that even our "socialist/marxist/communist" (whichever random one people use to demean the president without saying they hate him because he's black, because, in America being communist is equally as bad as being black...j/k...mostly) turns to market-based solutions to market-based problems. This is why people on the left are frustrated with Obama, because while he's doing all this stuff to keep his job, we aren't getting the socialist/marxist/communist black president we had hoped for. Still...at least he's not Mitt/Newt/Ron.

On a side note what's the over under in number of Presidential debates that it will take before the Republican candidate drops his first n-bomb in reference to Obama?

Ha, ha, ha. I always love disagreements that begin with - well, you must be stupid if you believe that.

Look at the history of NYC as it pertains to David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. It shows the success of giving businesses opportunity, reducing welfare rolls and increasing enforcement of laws. And that is a microcosm of what Reagan did for the Nation. Anyone that thinks otherwise must be.. well, I won't label you. But, increasing dependence on the state is never a prosperous thing for the lower class.

Wilds

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.

I'll take a stab.

1. Right and wrong. The economic problem is a result of our policy of big government (bale outs, Departments of the (insert 1 of 20 different departments that do nothing and cost a lot), bureaucratic inefficiency , fiat currency, and the boom/bust cycle created by monetary policy. Neither the Democrats or Republicans running have any interest in addressing the real problem. They will simply blame each other back and forth and every 4 or 8 years they will switch who is in the office of the president, but everything will continue as it is.

Ron Paul wants to fix this.

2. Yes and No. The problems in the middle east is a continuation of America's aggressive military expansionism. Where they occupy, propagate, and fight (Un-Congressional) War's and battles all over the globe. This has been done for the past 40 years with no end in sight. It does not matter if it is Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Bush, or Gingrich, or Romney, or Clinton, or Clinton. This policy will not change. The people who profit from sale of arms and the influence they have over both parties will keep it exactly how it is.

Ron Paul wants to change this.

3. I would agree with #3 a bit, as I prefer that if we are going to bankrupt this this country I would prefer the way Obama does it over Bush. But really preferred Bill Clinton. He worked within the system, but seemed to be slightly less war mongering. But Obama hasn't repealed any of the terrible things that Bush did. He just picked up the ball and continued to run with it.

Ron Paul will repeal all of the B.S. that has taken away our liberties.
Ron Paul will bring our troops home and offer less war.
Ron Paul will allow States to make social policy and get the Federal Government out of our lives.

We can still have all the Leftist programs. (just move to California)
We can still have our guns. (Move to Texas)
You can find the America that suits you through smaller government a the Federal level.