Is it to early to say i told you so about Obama?

Flutter Girl

I'm actually going to agree..I want him to turn out okay..It's just hard looking at his old record and everything else.

At the very beginning I backed him, till he made the choices I mentioned in my own thread..And also I had written to him asking what he would do for folk with disorders like bipolar cos we catch hell trying to get medicaid (I'm on my 10th app for it..and stuck not being allowed to work) after he first started talking bout health care, back when his campaign was so small I actually got a personal response from him. He, in political talk, said he understands but in't gonna do shit.

Then later on that talk about social health care, and spread the wealth. My fam is from former soviet Latvia, and I am from socialist Germany. social health care is shit, and we know all too well what sharing the wealth means. If you work hard for it, you should be allowed to keep it. You rightfully earned it.

Then now with his new choices, plans for the troops and that rebellion against him by his own party..It's getting to be too much

pjalive21

yes the man is allowed his 100 days but when are people going to question Obama's DECISION MAKING!!!! He appoints two people to his office Bill Richardson and Geithner who end up when other people do background checks on these guys are frauds, then Obama comes out AFTERWARD and says "its an embarassment"...for who exactly President Obama? i would say more an embarassment to him for being clueless on who he is electing and officials

pjalive21

Cosmo wrote:

pjalive21 wrote:

let me make it clear i dont think McCain was the answer either so im with you on that one

...
Wait... so, you lambast people who voted for Obama... because they 'didn't do their research' on him before the election... and you didn't and don't support McCain, right?
Who did you vote for... Ralph Nader or Stephen Colbert?

I voted for McCain because of the two choices, well more if you count independents, because i thought he was better for the protection of this country as well as having plenty of experience compared to the enormous list of things about Obama which are right in front of people faces that they ignored because they wanted to be "a part of history"

McCain's economic policy wasnt good but if he surrounded himself with good appointees he could have been find, as we are finding about Obama the people he is surrounding himself with are frauds

BinFrog

pjalive21 wrote:

yes the man is allowed his 100 days but when are people going to question Obama's DECISION MAKING!!!! He appoints two people to his office Bill Richardson and Geithner who end up when other people do background checks on these guys are frauds, then Obama comes out AFTERWARD and says "its an embarassment"...for who exactly President Obama? i would say more an embarassment to him for being clueless on who he is electing and officials

He is not clueless on who he is electing. He is trying to pick the most qualified individuals, and people who will bring something more than just the status quo. They do background checks on all candidates. That's not to say they scour everyone's redords and find every single thing. Every administration has made mistakes or has had lapses in judgement while choosing cabinet members. Everyone in politics, as in live in general, has skeletons in their closets. These hiccups don't bother me, yet. Do you honestly think you can pin all the blame on Obama? You think he has direct access to the background checks? He has his team who do the dirty work. They missed or overlooked a few things. They are not frauds. They had indiscretions that came back to bite them. It's politics: it happens. It says nothing about Obama as a future president or as a person.

inmytree

pjalive21 wrote:

yes the man is allowed his 100 days but when are people going to question Obama's DECISION MAKING!!!! He appoints two people to his office Bill Richardson and Geithner who end up when other people do background checks on these guys are frauds, then Obama comes out AFTERWARD and says "its an embarassment"...for who exactly President Obama? i would say more an embarassment to him for being clueless on who he is electing and officials

ha ha ha....

you slam obama and give mccain a free pass on palin...

good stuff...

pjalive21

inmytree wrote:

pjalive21 wrote:

yes the man is allowed his 100 days but when are people going to question Obama's DECISION MAKING!!!! He appoints two people to his office Bill Richardson and Geithner who end up when other people do background checks on these guys are frauds, then Obama comes out AFTERWARD and says "its an embarassment"...for who exactly President Obama? i would say more an embarassment to him for being clueless on who he is electing and officials

ha ha ha....

you slam obama and give mccain a free pass on palin...

good stuff...

you are a perfect example of someone who voted for Obama....if its not Bush, its now going to be Palin, get over it

Palin was never in this discussion as she is not VP, her and McCain lost...Obama/Biden are in office and all my questions are directed towards the upcoming administration

pjalive21

BinFrog wrote:

Do you honestly think you can pin all the blame on Obama? You think he has direct access to the background checks? He has his team who do the dirty work. They missed or overlooked a few things. They are not frauds. They had indiscretions that came back to bite them. It's politics: it happens. It says nothing about Obama as a future president or as a person.

please dont tell me you think this is right?

you have such high confidence in someone, you stand up for their character enough to elect them to the office of the united states but have zero clue they owe the IRS money or are being investigated by the FBI????

c'mon you cant be that naive can you to give Obama a pass as he had no clue? just like Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Blagojevich and on and on

BinFrog

pjalive21 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

Do you honestly think you can pin all the blame on Obama? You think he has direct access to the background checks? He has his team who do the dirty work. They missed or overlooked a few things. They are not frauds. They had indiscretions that came back to bite them. It's politics: it happens. It says nothing about Obama as a future president or as a person.

please dont tell me you think this is right?

you have such high confidence in someone, you stand up for their character enough to elect them to the office of the united states but have zero clue they owe the IRS money or are being investigated by the FBI????

c'mon you cant be that naive can you to give Obama a pass as he had no clue? just like Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Blagojevich and on and on

I an not naive for disagreeing with you. If I didn't believe what I was typing, I would not have typed it.

If we are all "typical" Obama supporters, then you are the typical "I told you so" McCain voter. You want SO bad for Obama to fail, and you think every little thing he does wrong is a prime opportunity for you to gloat. Don't even try coming back with "Look, I wanted Obama to succeed, I really did". He's not even in office yet.

Instead of trying to bring him down every chance you get, how about hoping he actually brings change to a country (and world) that desperately need it. Give the man a shot...he's inheriting a country that has become the laughing stock of the world and is on the verge of economic collapse. Do you not want him to succeed?

Cosmo

pjalive21 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

pjalive21 wrote:

let me make it clear i dont think McCain was the answer either so im with you on that one

...
Wait... so, you lambast people who voted for Obama... because they 'didn't do their research' on him before the election... and you didn't and don't support McCain, right?
Who did you vote for... Ralph Nader or Stephen Colbert?

... McCain's economic policy wasnt good but if he surrounded himself with good appointees he could have been find, as we are finding about Obama the people he is surrounding himself with are frauds

...
The key word in that statement is 'IF'. IF he (would have) surrounded him with good appointees.
I think a clue was given about the people he **might** have appointed was revealed with his choice for a running mate. If those were the types of people he would have appointed... would that have been a good thing?

Flutter Girl

I'm sorry I find it hard to believe they didn't check a man's financial background before electing him to be treasurer...

I voted Nader..McCain is just another typical politician.

Pats54

Questions to all of these peple who are saying give him a chance he should get at least 100 days. Were you saying the same thing in 2001 when Bush won or would you be saying the same thing if McCain had won. After a year or two when things haven't gone as planned for this Administration (b/c they have set such lofty goals almost unattainable goals) we will hear how he inherited the wost economy since the Depression, which is total b/s because the Carter Admin really fucked up this country. The other scary thing is the media is totally in the bag for this guy. So you can forget any objective reporting. T

BinFrog

Pats54 wrote:

Questions to all of these peple who are saying give him a chance he should get at least 100 days. Were you saying the same thing in 2001 when Bush won or would you be saying the same thing if McCain had won. After a year or two when things haven't gone as planned for this Administration (b/c they have set such lofty goals almost unattainable goals) we will hear how he inherited the wost economy since the Depression, which is total b/s because the Carter Admin really fucked up this country. The other scary thing is the media is totally in the bag for this guy. So you can forget any objective reporting. T

No, I did not give Bush a chance in 01. He didn't win the election so he didn't deserve my respect.

I did however give him a chance for 2-3 months after 9/11...until he showed his true colors.

tybird

Pats54 wrote:

Questions to all of these peple who are saying give him a chance he should get at least 100 days. Were you saying the same thing in 2001 when Bush won or would you be saying the same thing if McCain had won. After a year or two when things haven't gone as planned for this Administration (b/c they have set such lofty goals almost unattainable goals) we will hear how he inherited the wost economy since the Depression, which is total b/s because the Carter Admin really fucked up this country. The other scary thing is the media is totally in the bag for this guy. So you can forget any objective reporting. T

Yes, because I voted for Bush in 2000...Gore was a complete tool...and still is despite his work in the environmental movement that he supposedly created. :roll:

Flutter Girl

I gave him a chance after 9-11 too..But after both of the elections, forget it. I'm in Florida. We all know Jeb helped him cheat.


You know what really gets under my skin...All this crap about you did it, your votes counted, your voices counted, and the whole get out the vote campaign. People wake up, your vote didn't count for shit. That campaign was a massive waste of time, money, ink, and paper.

And I agree, media will make up excuses for his fuck ups.
Gore is specifically a screwdriver, he's screwing everyone over.

Cosmo

Pats54 wrote:

Questions to all of these peple who are saying give him a chance he should get at least 100 days. Were you saying the same thing in 2001 when Bush won or would you be saying the same thing if McCain had won. After a year or two when things haven't gone as planned for this Administration (b/c they have set such lofty goals almost unattainable goals) we will hear how he inherited the wost economy since the Depression, which is total b/s because the Carter Admin really fucked up this country. The other scary thing is the media is totally in the bag for this guy. So you can forget any objective reporting. T

...
I can only speak for myself... so, to answer your question.... 'Yes, I did'.
I voted for Gore in 2000, not because I wanted him, but because in my personal opinion, Gore was the Lesser Evil. Why? Because I felt in 2000 that there would definately be one, possibly two and maybe even three vacancies in the Supreme Court in the 2000-2004 period. I voted against Bush because of his close ties to the Religious Right (Falwell/Robertson types) and would seat judges based upon political favors, rather than the Constitution. I personally feel that this country would be better suited to rule on legal matters based upon the Constitution, rather than the King James/American Standard Bible.
And after the attacks of September 11, 2001... I fully supported Bush and the actions in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. I worried about our alliance with Afghan Opium Warlords and hoped we'd rely more on the worldwide support, specifically from our NATO Allies, on that front.
Bush lost me when he turned his attention away from the Al Qaeda global network and focused on the Iraqi regional target. The blunders in the short period ensuing the Iraq action turned me away from Bush and his incompetent administration. I personally feel that war is a necessary action against aggression and NOT something to be taken on as a choice. We went from being against every aspect of the former Soviet Union to adopting those same Soviet tactics under Bush.
After the 2004 election there was no '100 Days' because it was not a transition, rather a continuation of failed foriegn policy and gross misuse of our military personel. As for McCain... would it be a transitional changeover... or a continued policy set forth by the Bush Administration?
...
Also, regarding McCain. If the McCain from 2000 ran in 2008, I would have been torn between the 2 candidates. The McCain of 2000 was against the Religious Right's desire to turn us towards a Christian Theocracy, rather than a Secular Democracy. The McCain of 2008 was a carbon copy of what the Neo-Republican Party wants as a leader. McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin was the death blow. A political gimmick in order to appease the Religious 'Family Values for Your Family, Not Mine' Fundamentalist (Falwell/Robertson types) is not my opinion of what Conservatism in America is about.
...
I hope this answers your question. at least, from this American's point of view.

NoCode_1

pjalive21 wrote:

yes the man is allowed his 100 days but when are people going to question Obama's DECISION MAKING!!!! He appoints two people to his office Bill Richardson and Geithner who end up when other people do background checks on these guys are frauds, then Obama comes out AFTERWARD and says "its an embarassment"...for who exactly President Obama? i would say more an embarassment to him for being clueless on who he is electing and officials

can you name me a president that hasnt had appointees come back as frauds.

NoCode_1

Pats54 wrote:

After a year or two when things haven't gone as planned for this Administration (b/c they have set such lofty goals almost unattainable goals) we will hear how he inherited the wost economy since the Depression, which is total b/s because the Carter Admin really fucked up this country. The other scary thing is the media is totally in the bag for this guy. So you can forget any objective reporting. T

yea Ronald Reagan didnt triple the deficit in 8 years :rolleyes: it was Carter.


Ronald Reagan was the worst president in fiscal responsibility until current bush came along.

educated voters did their homework.

He's in office now because of it.

NoCode_1

RM291946 wrote:

I'm sorry I find it hard to believe they didn't check a man's financial background before electing him to be treasurer...

I voted Nader..McCain is just another typical politician.

you're really reaching. ever president has appointee fuckups, if you want me to list them please reply.

Flutter Girl

SF60102 wrote:

RM291946 wrote:

I'm sorry I find it hard to believe they didn't check a man's financial background before electing him to be treasurer...

I voted Nader..McCain is just another typical politician.

you're really reaching. ever president has appointee fuckups, if you want me to list them please reply.

I haven't liked every president. The only one I did like was Clinton, and that was stupid cos I based it on his being Gypsy. I'm ashamed he's one of us now.

All presidents in recent history sucked with the exception of Gerald Ford..I know he was portrayed as a dunce, but he was actually quite brilliant. I like the quiet ones, they do the job instead of going around showboating like someone is doing right now, suttley likening himself to Lincoln..

Nixon sucked, but so did Carter. Carter is why we have religious extremism in the Middle East, thanks to his incessant meddling, naivete, and continuously making a global embarrassment of Iran.

And Bush was fuckin awful, but we can't entirely blame him regarding the housing market crash..Clinton set him up to fail with that one.

I still think checking the financial background before nominating someone for treasurer is stupid common sense.

WaveCameCrashin

BinFrog wrote:

pjalive21 wrote:

yes the man is allowed his 100 days but when are people going to question Obama's DECISION MAKING!!!! He appoints two people to his office Bill Richardson and Geithner who end up when other people do background checks on these guys are frauds, then Obama comes out AFTERWARD and says "its an embarassment"...for who exactly President Obama? i would say more an embarassment to him for being clueless on who he is electing and officials

He is not clueless on who he is electing. He is trying to pick the most qualified individuals, and people who will bring something more than just the status quo. They do background checks on all candidates. That's not to say they scour everyone's redords and find every single thing. Every administration has made mistakes or has had lapses in judgement while choosing cabinet members. Everyone in politics, as in live in general, has skeletons in their closets. These hiccups don't bother me, yet. Do you honestly think you can pin all the blame on Obama? You think he has direct access to the background checks? He has his team who do the dirty work. They missed or overlooked a few things. They are not frauds. They had indiscretions that came back to bite them. It's politics: it happens. It says nothing about Obama as a future president or as a person.

A few hiccup's? I guess your just quoting harry Reid? Its okay when The messiah makes a mistake but when Bush made one he was an idiot.typical left wing bias