Obama starting to sound like Bush ?
Godfather.
Posts: 12,504
well ....it is election time right...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... kill-list/
Godfather.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05 ... kill-list/
Godfather.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Swell
he does it nicer though
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Certainly, he does it with drones instead of soldiers
but...but...I thought he was going to get us out of this war.
Godfather.
I'm confused, here.
If he's more like Bush... then, does that mean you are going to vote for him???
Hail, Hail!!!
I can picture as kindergarteners
Sorry, Godfather, but it seems to me the similarities are rather limited.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Godfather.
Yes - an EVEN kinder, gentler machine gun hand.....
But it's 2,000 points of light. A thousand was weak sauce.
I think Neil Young is doing an update to his song as we speak... Either that or keeping his trap shut about stuff he should be keeping his trap shut about. One or the other.
How's the hope and change? You feelin' it? Oh, yeah - it's Gerald Ford's fault. I forgot.
This is another thing that confuses me...
Does this mean that the Hope and Change that you didn't want to see happen... didn't happen?
So, does that mean that the same, business as usual that you wanted to continue... continues?
Doesn't that mean that President Obama is doing the same things as President Bush was doing?
Doesn't that mean... you support President Obama????
Hail, Hail!!!
Ummm.. Or he changed some things and made them worse. I can't believe the simple translations folks made. Yes, we were in a recession when Bush left. Nobody has argued that. It didn't need to be as deep or as long as Obama has made it. So, that change (for the worse) is terrible.
As for foreign policy - he's basically followed Bush's which is a tacit approval. You can rationlize all you want that we couldn't pull out faster, we couldn't close Quantanomo, or whatever else. But, you elected him on not doing those things. So, those changes, while we could see them unwise was what you elected him based on. And that he didn't do (perhaps wisely, or perhaps b/c the realities of the world set in when you are actually sitting in the seat).
But, ultimately - it's the economy, stupid. And that's where he has done things that have destroyed things worse than necessary.
So, no. He didn't do what you elected him for, and what he did effect went down the crapper. Even if I supported him I would not be voting for him again. I know what he did doesn't work. Let's get someone (anyone) new in. The only other time it took more than 4 years to pull out of a recession was FDR. And even then, we only pulled out b/c of the war and not b/c of anything he did (notice the economic parallel? Not the war part - the cause of deeper recessions part - give a man a fish....).
Ummm.. Or he changed some things and made them worse. I can't believe the simple translations folks made. Yes, we were in a recession when Bush left. Nobody has argued that. It didn't need to be as deep or as long as Obama has made it. So, that change (for the worse) is terrible.
As for foreign policy - he's basically followed Bush's which is a tacit approval. You can rationlize all you want that we couldn't pull out faster, we couldn't close Quantanomo, or whatever else. But, you elected him on not doing those things. So, those changes, while we could see them unwise was what you elected him based on. And that he didn't do (perhaps wisely, or perhaps b/c the realities of the world set in when you are actually sitting in the seat).
But, ultimately - it's the economy, stupid. And that's where he has done things that have destroyed things worse than necessary.
So, no. He didn't do what you elected him for, and what he did effect went down the crapper. Even if I supported him I would not be voting for him again. I know what he did doesn't work. Let's get someone (anyone) new in. The only other time it took more than 4 years to pull out of a recession was FDR. And even then, we only pulled out b/c of the war and not b/c of anything he did (notice the economic parallel? Not the war part - the cause of deeper recessions part - give a man a fish....).[/quote]
You seem pretty certain that Obama has done things that made the economy worse than necessary. What are those things that he did, and what should he have done differently? With you certainty, there must be some evidence to support your position.
Let's start with extending unemployment to a gazillion weeks. The proof of how this DOESN'T work is as different as Dinkins and Giuliani. Give a man a fish....
And his biggest impending disaster is hopefully about to be struck down by its own Unconstitutionality....
And, again - the economy is its own proof. Whether he's done something or not is irrelevant. Let's take your supposition - he's done nothing - or, he's done something - 4 years - no recovery. Why would you want to continue that? I guess that's my question back to you.
I know, it's Theodore Roosevelt's fault..... Damn Union destroyer!!!!!
Feel free to clarify.
Said the guy who works in the insurance biz!
The evidence doesn't say 'no recovery', it says slow recovery.
We agree - 4 years is slow.....
Huh? What does where I work have to do with this? If that's the case, I should love the health care bill he passed. It will be a complete boon for my industry. Bring it on!!!! But, it won't be good for the country (or health care costs). That's the point. The liberals/Dems are the real selfish ones. It's so funny to watch this play out on a public forum. I care about what's right of this country. Because, if its good for the economy at large, it will be good for me (though, to be quite honest, I personally do well either way. I just prefer EVERYONE get a piece rather than the myopic views the liberals take - even though they think they aren't). Taking from one person to give to another does not work except for the truly destitute. Especially since it takes money out of the economy where it can reproduce itself.
Sure - NYC Mayor David Dinkins stated that welfare rolls needed to be EXPANDED b/c folks couldn't fend for themselves.
NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani stated - welfare rolls NEED to be reduced, we NEED to give businesses reason to locate here and we NEED to fund law enforcement. Well, NYC prospered had its greatest tax revenue increase (Even though taxes were LOWERED for many businesses relocating there), Times Square has never been cleaner or more family safe/friendly and folks wanted the laws enforced. Not saying it was all positive. But, if you spent 10 minutes in NYC in the late '80s/early '90s and then another 10 in the late '90s/early 2000's, you would know what I am talking about. Literally Night(mare) and Day.
Let's see if I'm understanding this. You're saying that Obama has made the economy worse by giving the example of extending unemployment compensation. Then you support this stance with a Dinkins vs. Giuliani comparison? You know Mayors of cities have nothing to do with public assistance and unemployment, right? You're saying that Obama needs to fund law enforcement at a higher level and make it more appealing for businesses to locate in the U.S.?
I'm glad you understand how I feel.
I could make assumptions about what you're alluding to, but I'd rather you clarify.
Well, the analogy was not LITERAL. The point was liberals tend to focus on Robin Hood tactics that only work in the VERY short run, but wind up doing far more damage. Whereas conservatives tend to focus on helping folks to help themselves. Which, while painful in the short run is much more effective in the long run.
You can't take the comments about unemployment and directly link them to anything in a city economy as you point out. HOWEVER - in NYC there are many welfare programs that the mayor does have control over. Additionally, their power over what monies flow from the State to the City in these terms is also much different than any other economy. The fact is, NYC's economy is most like a State or even the Country than just about anywhere. Depending on the balance of power, the NYC Mayor is at times more powerful than the NY Governor believe it or not. Cuomo is tipping it back more to balanced/Governor, but when Rudy was Mayor, he held much more sway. Just think of the economic impact and taxes from businesses alone. Then consider the population it supports. Being Mayor of NYC is far more important or complicated than probably more than half the states' Governorships (including NY's at times). Sorry if I just trampled someone's ego.
In addition, Rudy didn't listen to naysayers or worry about his legacy. He knew if he did the right thing (lower welfare recipients, increase police presence), the right things would happend despite the Sharptons of the world trying to bring him down. Our current dear Prezzy was more worried about what folks thought of him (e.g. like Dinkins who made decisions based on what folks thought they wanted rather than what was better for the greater good) than actually doing the right thing. Though I tend to believe that comes with the territory of being incompetent. Competent folks don't worry about that because they know it will come out right.