 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama's first anniversary
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: michaelr Date: 20 Jan 10 - 03:20 PM Sworn in a year ago today. Are you better off? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 03:27 PM Than we were a year ago? Yes, we have real leadership. Than we would be if McCain/Palin were elected? Judging from McCain's reaction to the financial crisis... Hell Yes!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:16 PM I believe, Michaelr, you got your answer from the senate election in Mass. last night. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:24 PM Too bad. Obama's initiatives are dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: CarolC Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:26 PM One year is not enough time to make that determination, in my opinion. He's certainly no Kucinich, but I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time before I make a judgment about the impact of his presidency on my life, and one year is not a reasonable amount of time. Look at Bush. By the end of his first year in office, he'd only accomplished a small fraction of the total amount of damage he was ultimately responsible for by the time he left office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:27 PM The economy is still ruined for the next 16 years, and that loss is forever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:28 PM Oh? So now a "blue state" gets to decide for the whole country? LOL!! Shall we just have the 2012 presidential contest in Mass? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Jack the Sailor Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:29 PM The above was in response to DougR. YOU FOLKS ARE FAST!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:55 PM Are we better off now??? Well, yeah... We are... We don't have two oil-crooks running the show... We don't have to worry that Obama is going to call up a new war to steal other folks resources... That alone makes US better off... But as for fixing stuff that needs Congress??? No, we are still stuck with the same broken legilative system now as we have been going back a long, long time except that it's getting worse by the year... No presdient will ever again be able to lead the country toward fixing problems until that is dealt with... Minority rule is what we have and it ain't workin' for US... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM Look at Bush. By the end of his first year in office, he'd only accomplished a small fraction of his total amount of damage ha haha hahahaha ha aum ah a hmph sniff sob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: katlaughing Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:06 PM I am really puzzled as to what the fuck people want. Do any of them consider Congress when they complain that Obama has done nothing for them or that his initiatives are dead? If it were just up to him, we wouldn't have a democracy, no checks and balances, etc. kind of like what the shrub, rove, and chaney would like to have had...a dictatorship. I also agree with Carol. A year is not time enough to judge, esp. when one considers the gargantuan mess he inherited and has been working on with not much support from the spineless Dems., the recalcitrant GOP, and the people who are mad that "daddy" didn't just "fix it" in one fell swoop. This country is sick...everyone has to have a hand in its healing and that means compromising, getting together to find our commonalities NOT fight over our differences. Speaking positively and going forth with a positive outlook can do wonders. Oh, and from a friend in MA: the reason the GOP won was because they guy ran a good campaign and is quite glib and likable...he knows the right things to say to whatever type audience. The DEM, while she's been a good attorney general, ran a negative campaign and looked like an idiot, almost, my friend said, "as if she didn't really want to win." THAT is not a vote from the whole nation as to what Obama is or is not doing and it does not open the floodgates for GOP landslides. Stop using Obama for a scapegoat and see what the hell you can do to help change things for the better, but oh, that is so much easier, isn't it? Sit on your ass and complain whilst doing nothing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:28 PM Lessee, he was presented with 2 wars, Guantanamo, a fiscal crisis, environmental issues, immigration issues, all the bad will left over from 8 years of Bush, about 200 Republican legislators dedicated to making sure he got as little cooperation as possible, a whole bunch of other folks who hate the very idea of someone who's not 'white' being there at all, a White House years behind in technical wiring for modern communications, ....and a few dozen other 'minor' issues like gays in the military, leftover Katrina problems and a press corps which wants immediate answers...in detail. I see he's not done with all those yet! Failure, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM I really do wonder just what some people expected. Everybody knows that we were in seriously bad shape and everybody should know that repairing the damage and instituting lasting reforms and laying out a sustainable path for the future is going to take time, money and above all, inspiration and not to mention, perspiration. You out there who are ready to jump on President Obama and everyone who is trying to fix things: Just what did you expect? Just what do you think that a President McCain and Vice President Palin (Yikes! would be doing and have achieved at this point in their administration? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 10 - 05:50 PM I think I feel a LOT more certain about things with Obama at the helm. He has wrestled with really gruesome situations, of the kind GWB never faced when entering office, and has consistently used reason and dialogue to find ways through them. I disagree with some of his financial policy decisions, but they are surely not my call to make. At least they have not made things worse. Under the Reagan-Bush Axis of Indifference, the financial and economic fundamentals of the country gradually collapsed--Glass Steagall being one of the major steps. Over the last eight years we went from surplus to heart-stopping deficit. To elect to blame Obama for trying to find a balanced way out of these conflicting catastrophic demands is really ridiculously partisan. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:02 PM Any Repuglican who can, with a straight face, complain that Obama has not met any legislative goals, either has the honesty of Machiavelli, or the intelligence of blue-green slime mold. When Obama came into office, the Repuglican members of congress and Senators swore to obstruct him in any way they could. To do so, and then a year later complain that he hasn't gotten anything done -- it beggars belief. It's like your jailer asking why you haven't been jogging around the outside of the prison parking lot every day. It's nearly enough to make you wish a meteor would fall on the restaurant where they were having a Repug-only all-Representatives-and-Senators dinner. Although I am held back from wishing that by the sobering thought that the waiters might be honest people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:07 PM Plus, he hasn't lied his way into any new wars. I wish he'd get us out of the two we're in a bit faster, but I don't know all the details so it may be he's doing what he can. I do know Repuglicans complaining that he's too hawkish is deliciously absurd. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Donuel Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:20 PM Obama could have steered Congress with a different over arcing strategy that would have succeeded where the single huge bipartisin reform model has failed. To govern is VERY different than hoping everyone gets along and plays well together to create needed reform. yes mouse theif there is no Santa Clause, it is true that if Obama started to bring dead people like Nixon or Reagan back to happy healthy life, the Republicans would still call him the devil. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:17 PM With McWar and Hunting Barbie at the helm the US ship of state would have had such an economic disaster that the US would be a failed state like Somalia, the sequel to the "Grapes of Wrath" would be being written, and the economies of the rest of the Western world would have gone after. Do Americans (well, maybe not all of them, maybe only the Murkans) actually want to re-live the Mad Max films? If not, thank your deity of preference that the Obama-Brown axis saved you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:42 PM Being elected president at a time like this must seem like being named the new captain of the Titantic, and discovering there were even more icebergs than you expected. If I remember right, that captain was 'blamed' for his decisions, and it wasn't till 80-90 years later that the designers and the rivet makers got part of the credit... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 20 Jan 10 - 07:52 PM Good point, Donuel... Yeah, Obama could have just said the the Repubs "screw you" and had a bill on his desk several months ago... Guess the lesson to be learned here is that the majority party should be this "one party rule" party that the crybaby Repubs are crying about... That was Obama's biggest mistake... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:31 PM When can the left coast secede? Just Washington, Oregon, and California? Please? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Beer Date: 20 Jan 10 - 09:42 PM Like what you said Amos. Beer (adrien) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:17 PM Gee, mousethief.... how many 'countries' would we need to split into so that all the like groups could be kept together? *grin* You think Gerrymandering was complex and funny looking? Some states would be polkadots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: GUEST,mark-s(on the road) Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:28 PM Lets give Obama the benefit of the doubt. His biggest mistake was handing over implementation of all his agenda to the Dems in the Senate and House. That was like handing a bunch of teenage boys the car keys and the keys to the liquor cabinet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 20 Jan 10 - 10:41 PM "...handing over implementation of all his agenda..." Ummm.. that's sorta what presidents do. They outline and suggest. The Congress implements by passing legislation. He can twist arms a little bit maybe, but his 'agenda' IS at the mercy of what the legislators do. He can then veto bad stuff or sign good stuff...but he has to wait and hope a lot! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:09 PM Mousethief, please include Alaska. We can make it worth your while. Even without oil, we have a lot of resources. (Sorry about the Eastern Coast, Bill D.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Amos Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:41 PM As long as we don't have to issue Palin a passport... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:36 AM Okay, Alaska can come. Although now that I think about it, maybe we can just get Canada to annex the state of Washington -- British Columbia all the way to the Columbia? Why not? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 21 Jan 10 - 10:31 AM Of course Doug R would pop in with a comment that is 10 miles wide and about 1/4" deep. Yes we are better for all the reasons stated above. No need to restate the obvious about what he was handed and how he has governed, especially as compared to the previous eight years. But how would I rate him? We were all over optimistic. His ratings are surely being affected by our citizenry wanting instant gratification, and damn us for that whole "fast food" cultural weakness. But I am disappointed in how he has moved on his agenda. He promised "change we can believe in", and "a new way of doing things". But he puts cabinet posts in the hands of Geitner and Bernanke, and a year after the bailout the banks are right back in the credit default swap swing and paying higher bonuses and making more money than ever before. But none of that is being invested in creating jobs. Change I could believe in would have been to break up businesses that are "too big to fail". Granted that cannot be done in a year, but I don't even see signs of him putting it together. I see no committment to the kind of health CARE reform we need, let alone health INSURANCE reform. While I do agree it is critical to get something passed so we have a starting point to work from, I am very distressed at the way he talked a good game, but has shown no desire to fight for his agenda. His ratings are dropping and he will lay it off to what he was handed. I would probably say it is more due to him not showing enough backbone. He got elected with a pretty convincing mandate, but he has not shown the toughness to push it through. I still have hope that this marvelous man will one day get tired of the unfair attacks and the partisan stonewalling and let that campaigner come out of the closet and take it to the people. He would be amazingly effective. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:37 AM I agree fully, Big Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 11:38 AM On January 21 2010 Obama has been essentially voted out of office and virtually stripped of any authority to regulate banks. Today the Supreme Court ruled that any corporation including BOA AIG Goldman Sachs etc may now fully fund election campaigns, make movies fictional or not to destroy incumbant elections and allow infinite amounts of contributions from such corporations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Paco O'Barmy Date: 21 Jan 10 - 12:20 PM Who? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:02 PM Might as well ask who "Paco O'Barma " is. Seems that changes regularly |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Peter T. Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:29 PM Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make to run mad. Watching a country self-destruct at the peak of empire is astonishing, mesmerizing, scary. Those of us in the colonies can only shake our heads and await the next act...... yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:46 PM Supreme Court Decision- Business, non-profits and unions all given the power to spend freely in federal elections. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority 5-4 decision, said "When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought." "The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 01:57 PM Hard to argue with the underlying thought, but it boils down to: Translation: May the candidate with the most money win. That's good ol' American plutocracy. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:16 PM "May the candidate with the most money win." This also assumes the electorate can't think for itself. This may be true, but it is a sad commentary on a country which prides itself on a "literate, educated" populace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:17 PM It was Jefferson who said that. It's been a while since then. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Amos Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:19 PM The argument against it is not to dampen the freedom to think for oneself, but to dampen the flooding of media with bogus distortions. It cannot be gainsaid that the power of purchase has replaced thepower of rational persuasion. This means, for example, if Palin drums up the dough, she has the right to assert Obama has been promoting death panels, even though the idea is egregiously slanderous and false. But ok. I honor and respect the underlying core principle that folks should think for themselves and not be hiundered therefrom. How about, then, we make false statements on public matters an actionable offense? This does not constrain the freedom to speak, merely the freedom to lie harmfully. Seems to me at least that full responsibility to slander and libel laws should apply. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: gnu Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:43 PM Amos. All well and good, but who would we vote for? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 21 Jan 10 - 02:59 PM Hmm - party affiliations of the judges? It seems to me that there may be a fundamental problem with the Supreme Court. Maybe a Republican judge could sicken and die, so that a civilised human being could be appointed. As for the banks, did Obama not just today almost declare war on them? You have to admire the man, even if he is still learning how to wrestle in the ultimate slime-pit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:12 PM Mr Obama cant and wont change anything. America is too polarised, even if he really wanted change, to let him carry it out. I'm sorry to say, but voting statistics prove that Obama was elected by "Black America" and as such is perceived by much of the country as a black president. For meaningful change to be achieved first you need to unite your population...doesn't matter if it be on the left or on the right, but without unity you will always be pawns in the corporate financial game. His worst mistake? Without doubt, inviting Bill and Hillary along for the ride....ever since the Mass. result she's been stroking her "stiletto" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:04 PM Another problem with a huge amount of money being pumped in is this country means that it will distort the news coverage. Going back to Amos' example, will the news media call Palin on her lies if it means she can pull millions in ad revenue from their stations? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:18 PM As per the premiere post, are you better off? Honestly yes. My good Republican neighbors have stopped calling and mailing authorities annoymously the 4 branches of goverment that willingly accept unsubstantiated accusations which amounted to : 2 IRS investigations, 2 social service investigations, 2 police investigations (for using a duly authorized water meter on a hydrant to fill a pool) 2 State Tax investigations and 2 years running having my right to vote removed due to an accusation that I did not live at my address... PER YEAR !!! > The other stuff they did was also costly but non official. Having to respond to these unsubstantiated annonymous accusations could cost between2 to $4,000 per year for lawyers. Now that people here no longer feel strongly that questioning the Bush administration policies is no longer blasphemy or a crime of treason or merely being unpatriotic, these attacks have stopped. The power they once felt to punish the non believers has diminished. Its as if they were required to hand in thier arm bands. They may still revel in the glory days and feel their heart quicken to the beat of tea baggers but at least they are leaving me out of thier plans of vengence. PS when I say neighbors, the conservative Christians we bought the house from were both IRS agents and remained in contact with my current neighbors. I assume the rest was done with rumor, amplification of those rumors and a concerted effort to punish my family for whatever those rumors purported. (such as saying Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar) The support the troops for God and country crowd, are in it for the long run I am sure but they are a bit less confident in the current climate to attack us, even in the most cowardly ways. I have to say we are better off simply in the sense we are left alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Paul Burke Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM It's a shame that Obama seems to have taken his example from Tony Blair. It's sad, but we went through this a dozen years ago. It seems that there is no alternative. Oh, no, you can't. The future is indeed bleak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Donuel Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:41 PM The future is indeed banks. and how we must serve them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:07 PM 'm sorry to say, but voting statistics prove that Obama was elected by "Black America" and as such is perceived by much of the country as a black president. .............. His worst mistake? Without doubt, inviting Bill and Hillary along for the ride....ever since the Mass. result she's been stroking her "stiletto" ake, that's ridiculous. Your first assertion is palpably false. I'd like to know where you get that idea? True enough that most Black people voted for Senator Obama but tally the numbers, if you will please. Second assertion: I have not read others' analyses but from my viewpoint, I think that Hillary Clinton is doing a great job, including supporting President Obama. Where do you get that stuff?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:20 PM (Ebbie... he doesn't 'get' that stuff.... it just flows from his head like bubbling hot springs. When one is just against something, opinion is often no more than slogans and hyperbole. "Let's throw LOTS of mud at the wall, and see what sticks.") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: GUEST,999 Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:22 PM I have to wonder at the political acumen of people who expect one year to change things. It took the US people about sixty years to get into the mess it has, and folks think the present president will have had time in one year to 'fix it'? Please send some of what you're smoking to me. The real question is 'has he tried to change things for the better/' and then 'who stopped him?'. Republicans can make accusations but never have to answer questions like "would you please explain to the great unwashed what Bush did for the US?" I'd like to know. Some folks simply have their heads up their own arses. Warm and comfy there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: GUEST, heric Date: 21 Jan 10 - 07:38 PM airamerica.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Jan 10 - 07:51 AM I am in disagreement with most of Obama's foreign policy not because he is Obama...but because I would disagree with anyone who was pursuing such a foreign policy. As such, I am rather disappointed with what Mr Obama has done in his first year, because I had hoped (slender hopes) for better. I think most of the world outside the USA feels the same way. Heck, it's obvious that they feel that way. I have seen very little change in America's foreign policy since Obama's election...just looks like round 3 of George Bush so far to me...although Obama speaks, of course, in a far more erudite and reasonable-sounding manner than George Bush was capable of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:11 PM And today, Obama got his anniversary gift! A 11% unemployment rate! He's doing a GREAT job! Right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: pdq Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:01 PM In Nevada, the unemployment rate is 13% officially, although many more people are no longer looking so not counted. An analysis if the ObamaCare bill came out today. Nevada will be the worst hit of any state by added expenses. Approximately 95% of Medicaid cost will be shifted from the federal government to the state of Nevada. We will be bankrupt. "Dirty Harry" Reid is so despised at this point, I believe he will retire rather than face a humiliating loss this November. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:30 PM Hey Doug, you want to know why I think you are incapable of any sort of decent intellectual discourse??? Your post demonstrates exactly why. You are so bound to partisan horseshit, that you simply attack Obama, regardless of the facts. I will say this slow, try reading for comprehension, OK? During the whole of the Bush administration, all you could do was defend them while they took eight years to create a budget surplus and stuck us in a deficit hole that will take generations to fix. But when President Obama can't fix this in 13 months you post that tripe. Your partisanship is showing. While your boys spent eight years getting us involved with a war that there was not one shred of evidence to justify, you carp when this young president can't get us out in 13 months. While your boy, and I will admit he was abetted by the Presidency of Clinton, destroyed the financial regulatory safety net, you still take shots at Obama when he is trying to fix it. You are a hopeless, bitter old man whose intellectual capacity has been warped by Rush Limbaugh style manipulation. Some here see you as a nice but curmudgeonly old man. Do not count me in that group. In the words of a current movie, I see you. To those offended by the tone of this post, I apologize for making you uncomfortable. But I tire of this endless partisan horseshit, from the right and the left, which is paralyzing our country, hurting our citizens, and leading us down the path of Rome. If we cannot get back to the basic tenet of respect for one another's views, respect for the office of the President, and seeking consensus, I fear all is lost. We are rapidly becoming the world's largest third world country while Nero (people like DougR) fiddles their bitter little arses off. Mick (rant off) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM I rather like the fact that government moves slowly. It's frustrating when Our Guy is the one in charge and can't accomplish everything we wanted, but it also means that the Republicans can't get everything they want when they're in power. All in all, I think that Obama is doing a very good job. He hasn't worked the miracles that some people expected, but it's comforting to me to know that for once we have a rational, ethical, intelligent leader in the White House. In my lifetime, we have had very few rational, ethical, intelligent Presidents. That being said, the one thing I really hope for, is that we finally have universal health care. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 22 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM Wow, Mick, that's quite a tirade! You criticize ME for being partisan? Partisan?? Of course I'm partisan, I've never tried to conceal that. But you're are not, right? You and your fellow Bush haters are so fond of comparing President Bush's economic record with your guy (note I not say "boy" as you did in your post). The Wall Street Journal had a very interesting op-ed piece in yesterday's edition. Since it's the WSJ, you may not have read it. I quote: "From Jan. 2o, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush - to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well. By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and the Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in EIGHT YEARS (My emphasis). Mr. Obama's spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for DOUBLING (My emphasis)the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10. Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7% Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade. Team Obama has been on history's biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010." So the financial facts based on figures from the Office of Management and the Budget do not support Obama's supporters who claim that it was Bush who got him into the mess he now rules over, he did it to himself (and the American people). As to my well being, well I certainly am neither hopeless or bitter. Actually I'm a pretty positive person and I'm even confident that better days will be ahead of us just as soon as Mr. Obama has served his one term as president. You speak of "respect for the office of the president?" Are you referring to the kind of respect members of this forum who hated George Bush showed during his eight years in the presidency? I would include you in that group. Cool down, Mick, as is often the case you and I simply do not agree. Were there no "freedom of speech" guaranteed by our Constitution, one of us probably would be running now from the government secret police. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:21 PM DougR, I read most of your most recent post- couldn't stomach the rest of it. You gibe that it took President Obama only a year to put us the same amount in debt that it took Bush 8 years to do. My question: What in the world do you think Obama could do to right the stuff that the Bush administration created? And again, I ask: If the Republicans were in office right now what do you think they would be doing? They would have the same mess to clean up that Obama found. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:29 PM Paul is quite correct... Blair was our Obama, elected on a centre left ticket, to replace a rightwing conservative regime...with a huge majority and huge public support. It meant nothing, Blair was forced from office after a series of attacks on left wing ideals domestically; and a foreign policy that would have shamed any UK Conservative administration, including involving us in a disgraceful conflict in Iraq, for nothing more than perceived personal glory. The "liberal" left I'm sorry to say, function better when in opposition.....they simply do not have the conviction required to effect change. We on the left, do not really want change, we want to talk about change...unlike Doug and his friends, we dont believe in the ideas we espouse. Just look at them, they are confident, sure in their beliefs,they know Mr Obama is just the interval entertainment, the main show will be back on the road very soon....and they are dead right. We on the left think we can effect massive economic and social change without pain....or at least we have fooled ourselves into thinking that, but we haven't fooled many outwith the "chattering liberal classes" We dont like pain and the general public dont like pain, but if we are to effect meaningful change, we will get pain in shedloads, it will mean great personal sacrifice......for an ideology?...you must be kidding, nobody wants to sacrifice their comparitively high standard of living to subsidise the "great unwashed". Doug knows that and has the balls to say it...he knows us better than we know ourselves! The people who run this system know what we are, and they have always bet their limit that we stay as we are....chattering cowardly hypocrits, running around ensuring the civil rights of everyone while the gates of the real world clang shut all around us. Obama has served his purpose to the one party system, his gilding is already peeling, soon he will be gone and the next act will be the first woman president. Roll up! Roll up! The system is in trouble this time, but to change it we need more than pretty words or half hearted measures designed to rock the boat....but not too much! Obama talks about bank regulation...he pulls that out of the hat like a conjurers rabbit, but he and his advisers know very well that to service a system like this, sufficient growth must be achieved and sustained; to achieve the required growth the financial institutions must be given free rein....until it all collapses again and "Joe Soap" is forced to engineer another bail out. That is how a Capitalist economy works! You dont like it? Then don't listen, dont whine about human rights, dont worry about better healthcare,(you know everyone will scam it and rob it blind, like in the UK).......Just go get the fuckin guns! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:35 PM Easy for you to say. And where is your vaunted superiority over the US's fixation on guns? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 22 Jan 10 - 05:43 PM "Of course I'm partisan, I've never tried to conceal that." **BLINDLY** partisan. I think I agree largely with what Mick & Ebbie have said. No need to type long explanations, as you just do that little side-step and ignore the part you can't answer and chant the usual slogans. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 12:36 AM Bill D: YOU agree with Mick and Ebbie? What a surprise! Ebbie: Perhaps you should have read the whole of my message, then you could refute the figures included from the WSJ article. (If you could). DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:22 AM Ebbie...Sometimes we have to fight fire with fire, THIS time I was speaking metaphorically. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Jan 10 - 01:26 PM With the health bill in limbo and so much time wasted on it, the revolt in Massachusetts just might teach Obama that government is a cooperative enterprise between Congress and the White House, the former under the Constitution more important. Without the conservative input his programs are dead meat. The economy, making business strong enough to provide jobs, is the first priority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:10 PM Doug, I am not going to move the debate to you and hijack the thread, but I am going to point out the flaw that you and all hopeless partisans (right and left) share. Your response to pointed criticism of your VIEWS/OPINIONS was to try and shift the debate to personalities. Examples: Bush's economic record with your guy (note I not say "boy" as you did in your post). I will deal with the last one first. Again, take off your partisan blinders, read for comprehension as well as context. There is a 300 year old custom in this country of using the term "boy" as a perjorative when referring to people of color. It was used as a reference to the superiority of the one race over the other. "Boy" when used as a colloquialism between whites is more of a familiar term that is not meant as a perjorative to demonstrate superiority. In that context it simply means your guy. As to your smirky implication that I am a racist, I can simply think of no civil way to say this, so I will revert to my street lingo and say, "fuck you". As to your contention about the WSJ article, let me deal first with your contention and then with the article. Your contention that liberals like myself probably didn't read it is erroneous and typical of your wrong headed partisan approach. While I do consider myself a progressive, I make it a point to listen to right wing talk shows, tv shows, and read the WSJ and other papers of that point of view on a regular basis. You incorrectly imply that WSJ is a right wing paper. It is a business oriented paper. As a nearly 30 veteran of collective bargaining, I find it very important to know what ones bargaining adversaries,political opponents and flacks, are thinking. I have always felt that if I could not listen to their spins and see the flaws, then perhaps I needed to rethink my positions, and see if there isn't something correct in the oppositions viewpoint. As to the content of the article, it was factual but to break out of the partisan thinking trap that you are caught in, you must make a leap that I don't believe you possess the ability to do. You must quit looking for data that simply supports your biases and try to put the data presented into the context of the total picture. Then you would have understood that in the narrow definitions of "debt" and "deficits" what was presented was true. But when you throw off the intellectual shackles that bind you, you would have realized that the narrow definition is not a fair way to judge this president's term thus far. First off, the stimulus package that resulted in a great deal of the debt was part of the bailout that started during the Bush administration, was voted on prior to Obama taking office and had the initial payments made with very few conditions before he even took the oath of office. Second, Obama is trying to accomplish what virtually every administration for over 50 years has tried to accomplish, that being universal health care. Of course there will be more cost. Bush ignored the problem. It is easy to save money if you don't eat or go to the Doctor! Using the analogy of a sick person, you might be saving money but eventually you get sick and have to go and get fixed. The cost is usually much higher at that point, often bankrupting the family of the patient. And so it is with health care. First The figures the Journal are using are the subject of much debate as to their accuracy, and they make assertions that are the subject of disagreement by many prominent economists on both sides. Finally, the definition of cost is very narrow. It doesn't take into account the savings achieved by the larger pool of folks paying into the healthcare system, thus reducing the cost for those that already are paying. I am not saying that you would necessarily change your view of the President's plan and its effect on the economy, but at least you would be coming from a place of caring about what is best for all the citizens of our country, making your case, and seeking consensus with those coming from another point of view. You see, Doug, what made our system so successful up until the Reagan years, is that the sides didn't vilify one another, question their patriotism and call them disgusting. What made it work is that the sides understood that their job, in a pluralistic society, was to find consensus with one another for the common good. Sure the side with the majority got to have the plums in the pudding. That is democracy. But there was respect of one another. That is sauce that is missing from todays pasta. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:33 PM Sorry to butt in Mick...but you're wrong. "You see, Doug, what made our system so successful up until the Reagan years, is that the sides didn't vilify one another, question their patriotism and call them disgusting. What made it work is that the sides understood that their job, in a pluralistic society, was to find consensus with one another for the common good. Sure the side with the majority got to have the plums in the pudding. That is democracy. But there was respect of one another. That is sauce that is missing from todays pasta." What made our system work, was that we were "kings of the shitheap" we used our economic power to steal resources everywhere, we bullied and subverted democracy wherever we could, installing puppet govts and supporting dictators at will...how dare you...a member of the left, hold up the US /UK system as an example of democracy. Respect for one another! Our leaders had to be dragged screaming and kicking to treat blacks as equals....most of us remember that. What we see in front of us, is a system which has become unsustainable in an economic and an environmental sense, and the sad sight of a population being hoodwinked into thinking that it can be fixed, by weasel politicians, while they drain the last few drop of blood out of the carcase...Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:35 PM You know, I bet if you took the "you are so partisan and ignorant and I am so able to see all sides and almighty superior" bits out, it might actually make a readable screed. Most of it actually makes sense and/or is true. But anybody who calls a black man "boy" in this country in this year is either pig ignorant or a racist. But you just proved you're not ignorant, you know it's a racist term. I'm having a hard time avoiding the other conclusion. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:45 PM Wow. I assume you are speaking to Big Mick. If so, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:49 PM I assume, Mousethief, that you are referring to Doug? Or are you referring to both of us? Ake, that is another debate. Stick to the one at hand. There is much to intertwine, but I am referring to the process of making law and political process and how it applies to Obama's first year. The political reference to the Reagan years simply was to point out the genesis of the current partisan chasm that I believe imperils our flawed but hopeful experiment in governing. Our sins around the world and in our own country are another discussion. Or are you trying to defuse the arguments by blurring the premise? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:51 PM I'm back. I just realized what was wrong with your post, Alex. I rarely refer to 'political correctness' and its pros and misunderstood cons, but this is a case of it gone wrong, imo. What you just said refers to quintessential political correctness. You ignored the context in which it occurred and jumped to a pc interpretation. And yet, you were wrong. When I refer to my 48 year old daughter as a 'good girl', I am not being demeaning to her. In context, I am expressing my approbation of her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:52 PM Ebbie, I am not sure who he is referring to. Given the second line, I think it is clear that I made the delineation. If Mousethief is referring to me, it is clear that s/he did not read DougR's post. It will be interesting to see the response. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:04 PM I take it what you mean Ebbie,is, Its alright to be anti-PC as long as you're a "liberal". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:15 PM You are being deliberately obtuse, ake. My approval of 'political correctness' stems from courtesy and accuracy. If you don't like me to call you 'Shorty', I will not call you Shorty. That's courteous. If you wish to be referred to as politically savvy and informed- well, I can be polite but it wouldn't be accurate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:26 PM Getting back to your question further up Ebbie. Whites voted about 50/50 McCain/ Obama Blacks about 10/90 McCain Obama On your second point, I would agree "Hillary has done a great job"....for Team Clinton. She has made herself very visible all over the world weighing her words carefully to ensure her popularity soars while Mr Obama's sinks like a stone.....why do you think Hillary fought so hard for State? she could have and would have loved to walk away and bide her time.....but they dont call her the "Hawk" for nothing, and now she's swooping in for the kill! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:26 PM Thank you, ake. In your last post you exactly made my point about what is wrong with the state of politics and political discourse. You were purposefully obtuse for no other reason than to bolster your prejudices. It is a pleasure to have such a sterling example to refer to in future discussion. I owe you a pint. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:29 PM They call it irony, Mick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 04:43 PM The 'Hawk'? You may be correct- but I have not heard that. When I called you obtuse, one of the reasons is that you are trying to have it both ways. If Secretary of State Clinton were being inattentive to world problems or if she made statements about the administration or the President that could be understood as snide or undermining, you would be quick to point that out. And if she is alert, well informed and efficient you are quick to reveal your own prejudices. Need I tell you that I am glad that you are not an American? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:06 PM Hillary believes she should be President, that was evident in Unity(more irony)when she and Obama had their pretend lovefest. If you had loaned her your stiletto, she would have performed the dirty deed then and there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:57 PM You are so full of it! Of course she would like to be president- that, after all,is why she ran for it. For a politician there is nothing wrong in that. If Obama should fail to win the nod to run for a second term I don't doubt, other things being equal, that if she didn't like or particularly admire the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would run for the presidency. Again, for a politician there's nothing wrong in that. One thing the Clintons have shown repeatedly: they are pragmatists and they are team players. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 06:47 PM Yea ....Team Clinton! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:03 PM Mick: Thank you for your reply. First, let me make it quite clear (as the president says quite often)I do not think you are racist. I am not surprised that you read a great variety of newspapers, periodicals, etc. in keeping with your job. I question, however, that you read the op-ed that I referred to in my post. The reason:the article was written by Karl Rove, and no liberal would miss the opportunity to bash the author of the oped if he/she knew it was written by him. However, I will give you the benefit of a doubt. Perhaps you did read it and chose not to mention Mr. Rove. You suggest in your post that the figures I quoted (Mr. Rove's figures actually)are questionable. As I said in my post, they were supplied by the Office of Management and the Budget. The figures the Democrats have been using to sell their current health care plan and that they say will lower the cost of health care if passed into law is supported by the same office. Why are the figures Mr. Rove used questionable, but the figures used by the Democratic leadership supplied by the same government office are not? You state that the stimulus package was passed before Mr. Bush left office. According to information I found on the Internet, provided by the Heritage Foundation, the final bill passed on February 14, 2009. By that time, Mr. Bush was probably sitting on his front porch in Crawford, Texas eating watermelon. You make your case for Obama pushing healthcare and state that Mr. Bush ignored the problem. This is incorrect of course. President Bush tried to get the congress to support a bill providing health care savings accounts, I believe during his first term, but if not, during his second. The Democrats shot it down. You decry the lack of civility in Washington. I, too, wish there was greater "togetherness" in that city but the fault does not lie with just one party (Republicans), the Democrats are to blame too. Incidentally, I was incorrect in one of my posts when I said that unemployment in the U.S. increased to 11%. It's still 10% nationwide. I confused the figures with unemployment in a state that the president was due to visit to make another speech. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:07 PM Given Hillary's age and history, I think she is quite happy to go down in history as one of the most effective Secretary of States... Fcae it, we really haven't such in a long, long time... It also dovetails quite nicely with what Bill Clinton is doing... But, unlike Ake, I see her work as a big help for Obama... I think the two work well together... You don't really hear the Repubs slamin' her or Obama on foriegn policy... Ohter that extreme righties, of course... But they don't count... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:27 PM Exactly Bobert, Hillary is doing a "good job" As I said when he was first forced to invite Hillary the Hawk into his administration, "It wont be foreign policy that will bring him down...but the mire of domestic issues" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:30 PM ...forced to take her into his administration- ake, you have too much time on your hands and too little understanding of what idleness brings you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 23 Jan 10 - 07:53 PM So, why do you think he would invite a cuckoo into the nest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:00 PM Ake is right on one (and only one) respect. The right have the guns. The left need to use them. Mick is right in many respects. The agenda of the right is to keep what they have obtained from unrequited labour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 23 Jan 10 - 08:25 PM Casting no aspersions here, but if your wife were as intelligent as Hillary Clinton, akeneton, you would be a happy man. (Don't know about her happiness, though) :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:05 AM Where did I say Hillary was un-intelligent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Smedley Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:29 AM Viewed from the European side of the Atlantic, the U.S. is better off now because in electing Obama you proved you were still a country to be respected, not just be terrified of - you still have the Limbaughs and the Palins and all those other maniacs, but at least they're not the first or only thing we think of now when we think of America. I don't know enough about the details of policies to evaluate thoroughly, but in terms of the bigger picture, Obama's election remains and will remain an iconic moment in global history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 24 Jan 10 - 08:58 AM Yeah, it would be nice if when Obama became prsident that he had been given a magic wand that he could just wave and have 40 years, at least, of very bad foriegn policy just go "poof"... Yeah, sho nuff would have been nice... But he didn't get that wand and the reality on the ground is that it's gonna take some hard work and alot of time and resources to clean up after the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush mess... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: akenaton Date: 24 Jan 10 - 10:56 AM The reality, Bob my friend , is that it is now impossible to repair the system, even with a magic wand. Obama knows that, I suppose he's always known that....coming from his background, but he's a politician and he sure as hell doesn't want you and me to know. As far as Smedley's rhetoric is concerned, the euphoria of "our first black president" went quicker than snow off a dyke. What the fuck does it matter what colour he is if he's un-willing or unable to make any difference on the issues that really count? Just another fuckin' smoke screen! We don't need any more clever politicians, or even stupid politicians. We need somebody who actually believes in what they are saying, somebody with clear achievable objectives and who is prepared to tell the electorate that they're gonna have to suffer some to get there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Peter T. Date: 24 Jan 10 - 11:50 AM Can someone explain to an outsider (a druid in Gaul watching Rome implode) what -- if the Republicans or the Tea Party people or whoever -- take over, what they propose to do to solve the nation's ills? They seem to be against big government, but then how do they propose to stop the banks, get housing going again, deal with health care? Republicans are not known to be anti-bank, they have no interest in the poor or the working class, and they have no health care plan. As far as one can make out through the murk, the only things all these people can agree on are no gun control, no homosexual marriage, military spending, and tax cuts. How does any of this solve any of the economic and social difficulties? Can anyone enlighten me? It seems mysterious to me. A druid wants to know. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 12:06 PM I'm sure that DougR could tell you, Peter T. :) I have never been able to find anyone who would tell me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 01:26 PM Smedley:If you like Obama, I believe the majority of voters in the U.S. would gladly give him to you if you want him. Some members here, and you too, evidently believe he has done great things in foreign affairs. Would someone kindly enumerate them for us? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Smedley Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:27 PM I don't think he has done much in the way of 'geat things' yet, but from where I sit, the sheer fact that a non-white president could get elected in a country which in my lifetime was shooting & clubbing & setting dogs on & killing black people for asking for something like basic equality remains remarkable. If some of you think that's a romanticised view that overlooks the more pressing everyday urgencies of policy, you are probably right. But in the long view, his election is a landmark step in the civilising of the USA. The racist undertones (not all that 'under' either) of much of this tea-bag backlash bears out what I'm saying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 02:34 PM Ah, Doug! Glad to see you are back. Would you be so kind as to answer Peter T's questions? Start with Question 1. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Jan 10 - 03:44 PM Peter: for some insane reason the US lunatic right (like our own only more so) believe that cutting government spending is a magic bullet that will cure the economy: they believe in the "invisible hand". The fact that it caused the worst excesses of the depression in the USA and UK passes them by. They still believe in "trickle down" snake oil as sold by Ronnie Raygun and Thatcher the milk-snatcher. It's probably watching too many westerns that causes it (apart from the ones with Klaus Kinski in). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM Ebbie: To what questions do you refer? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:16 PM Here you go, DougR, lifted from Peter's post: 1) "... if the Republicans or the Tea Party people or whoever -- take over, what they propose to do to solve the nation's ills? 2) They seem to be against big government, but then how do they propose to * stop the banks, * get housing going again, * deal with health care? 3) Republicans are * not known to be anti-bank, they have * no interest in the poor * or the working class, and they have * no health care plan. (How would they resolve these inequities? Eb) 4) As far as one can make out through the murk, the only things all these people can agree on are * no gun control, * no homosexual marriage, * military spending, and * tax cuts. How does any of this solve any of the economic and social difficulties? "Can anyone enlighten me? It seems mysterious to me." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: mousethief Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM Ebbie said: I just realized what was wrong with your post, Alex. I rarely refer to 'political correctness' and its pros and misunderstood cons, but this is a case of it gone wrong, imo. What you just said refers to quintessential political correctness. You ignored the context in which it occurred and jumped to a pc interpretation. And yet, you were wrong. When I refer to my 48 year old daughter as a 'good girl', I am not being demeaning to her. In context, I am expressing my approbation of her. Well if you say I have misjumped, I will take your word for it, albeit reluctantly. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:35 PM Doug...I don't find it necessary to like Obama in order to prefer him to John McCain...if given that choice! ;-) I disapprove of the bank bailout Obama AND Bush gave to the 5 largest banks in your country. I disapprove of the wars and foreign occupations set in motion by George Bush and continued by Obama. I disapprove of Obama's enlarging the military involvement in Afghanistan, and I think McCain or Bush would have done the very same thing in his place, in all probability, plus some other stupid things. I disapprove of the current health care plan that is being attempted, because it doesn't go nearly far enough toward providing public health care for all Americans, and I think it's a giveaway to the private health insurance industry. I disagree with most of what Obama has done...but am I surprised? No. ;-) I've seen this happen before, and it's not surprising at all. And I still prefer Obama to either Bush or McCain even THOUGH I'm displeased with him. You see, disapproving of Mr Obama's policies does not equate to supporting the moronic policies of his erstwhile opponents, the Republicans in Congress. They'd be even worse than him, if given the chance. Probably quite a bit worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:36 PM And that was 100! What do I win? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:47 PM "what they propose to do to solve the nation's ills?" They don't propose anything, Peter... they just want power back, as they can manipulate various stuff easier that way. They have sort of strange assumption that 'the nation' will muddle along somehow, and they can reap the short-term benefits. (Now, I KNOW that none of them will say it that way, but having watched their behavior since Nixon and Reagan, there's very little else I can surmise.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 24 Jan 10 - 06:52 PM I have great faith that DougR is busy at his desk cogitating and that his eventual pronouncement will be permeated with wisdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jan 10 - 10:48 AM Douggie does not cogitate. He regurgitates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Amos Date: 25 Jan 10 - 11:01 AM Why are the figures Mr. Rove used questionable, but the figures used by the Democratic leadership supplied by the same government office are not? Perhaps because Mister Rove has a long recorded history as an opportunistic liar? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:42 PM Ah, Amos, spoken like a true objective liberal. Oops, is there such a thing. Ebbie: If Bill D. (and yourself of course)truly want to know the answers to Bill's questions and statements, I would suggest investing in a good book. If he and you are willing, I'll offer some suggestions in another post. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:49 PM See folks? Douggie can only operate in a fact-free environment. Tho Rove has been proven time and time again- by folks on both ends of the political spectrum- to be an amoral and oppostunistic liar-for-hire, Douggie-Boy is still in denial. He's not a partisan, he's an idiot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Ebbie Date: 25 Jan 10 - 12:51 PM DougR, I get the impression that if you could find such a book you would transmit its ideas verbatim with the only qualification needed for the author of being a good conservative. No matter. That would be better than no answers. But don't suggest that we should find such a book. You are the one who holds oppositional views and without ever postulating what you think the conservative/Republicans would be doing or what should be done now. I don't have too much hope, you know. Partly because of your inattention: It was not Bill D who asked the questions but Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 02:25 PM Ebbie: Bill D. - Peter T, whatever. Name one good reason for me to spend my time crafting a reply to Peter T's inane questions and statements when whatever I would write would be immediately dismissed anyway. Waste of time. Gorgeous Greg F.:"Rove has been proven time and time again - by folks on both ends of the political spectrum - to be an amoral and opportunistic liar for hire." Really? Perhaps, since is is "proven" you would be good enough to provide us with such proof! I will be awaiting your always so objective remarks. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:16 PM " Bill D. - Peter T, whatever." LOL...you can hardly tell us apart! Must be the auras! And if you don't read closely, you can hardly know what was said and what the relevance is. I provided answers....Republicans don't do ANYTHING about 'the nation's ills....they work to assure themselves that they can control the money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 25 Jan 10 - 04:58 PM That, DougR is what is known as obfuscation. You never really answer a question, rather you just create smoke and then blame the people asking the question for doing so, and finally, when all else fails, you say they will just pick it apart anyway so what is the use. It is why intellectual discourse with someone of your limited abilities is near impossible. I am sure you are a nice fella to have a cuppa joe with, but not for serious debate. I actually enjoy discourse with a well informed conservative. There is much to learn. But I am afraid you just don't cut the mustard on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 05:28 PM Yeah, the Reoublican Party is stuck in the just-watching mode right now, quick on criticism and slow on proposals... I think it is a joke for them to say that we should just start all over on health care reform... That is what Obama tried to do only to be toyed with... Same for the insurance companies and the drug companies... Remember, all these folks wanted a seat at the table... For what??? Heaven knows... It ceratinly wasn't to be participants... The sad thing is that the folks who will be hurt the most are the most vocal supporters of the Repoubs and their corporate crooks... Talk about ignorance!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:16 PM Ah well. There may be a sort of Darwinian beauty in that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 25 Jan 10 - 07:53 PM Aw, Mick, now you done gone and hurt my feelings. By the way, on January 23 at 07:03 PM I replied to your tirade about the Wall Street Journal article I mentioned in my earlier post, and me in general. Did I miss your reply, or was there one? Or did you just decide not to reply? Perhaps you have been busy communicating with a REAL conservative (Sara Palin?)and just haven't had the time? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Bobert Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:05 PM Oh, is Sarah Palin a REAL conservative, Dougie??? I been kinda wonderin' what a REAL consertvative believes other that Obama is a socialist, isn't a citizen, wouldn't have won if he was white, wants for the governeemnt to run yer health care, etc., etc... Maybe you should start a thread on what REAL conservatives do believe if those beliefs ain't on the endangered species list... That would be very interesting, indeed... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:43 PM I am sure you are a nice fella to have a cuppa joe with... Documentation, please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Big Mick Date: 25 Jan 10 - 09:55 PM Well, gee Doug, maybe you could name one good reason for me to spend my time crafting a reply to your inane questions and statements when whatever I would write would be immediately dismissed anyway. Actually, unlike you, I actually am engaged in important issues, and making a living with my music, and just popped in quick. I will go back and read your remarks, and reply. But take a little time with your McGuffy's Reader, brush up on your comprehension skills, so you will understand them when I do, K? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 26 Jan 10 - 02:40 PM Gee, Mick, I'll do my feeble best. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 27 Jan 10 - 01:10 PM Gee, can't let this thread die before the State of the Union speech, can we? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: DougR Date: 29 Jan 10 - 12:29 AM I guess we can. I was kinda hoping Mick might be able to get around to replying to the post I suggested reply to though. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: GUEST,999 Date: 29 Jan 10 - 12:42 AM Well, I mentioned earlier that Obama sure says nuculur in a strange manner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama's first anniversary From: Greg F. Date: 29 Jan 10 - 10:46 AM Hope Douggie-Boy is having fun talking to himself... |
