What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama V: For Vendetta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

rufus said:
Which in large part you can account for Obama's drop in the polls. I think the largest drops are among independents. You run on a platform,get elected because of it, you have the votes in the Congress to enact that program, and then you twiddle your thumbs and prevaricate and don't pass any of it, what do you expect people to think about you?

Like I said before, grow some balls and ram your legislation through, and don't give an eff what other people, especially the opposition party, say or think. That's what Bush did for eight years.
Click to expand...

most of Obama's failed promises and lies have nothing to do with congress and can be handled via executive order and appropriate appointments. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It doesn't phase you that he just flat out lied about various transparency measures?

edit: would have Obama been elected if he didn't promote such a white-knight position of government?

You want to lose independents? Come out looking like a charlatan and you've done enough. It has nothing to do with the adherence to progressive cant.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Kepler said:
Dueling bias aside, which was better? Carter folded under the oil crisis. Reagan I was great rhetoric but inaugurated our modern huge deficits, Reagan II was a miasma of "I don't recall." Bush Sr. was a good presidency despite stonewalling on Iran-Contra and putting tax payers $s at risk to recover from the "regulation? who needs that?" S&L disaster. Clinton I built on Bush to balance the budget and got real welfare reform. Clinton II treadd water despite the GOP's lame crucifixion re-enactment. Dubya was a disaster from the moment of the coup d'etat, 9 months before failing to protect the nation from attack, and a year before Cheney dressed him up as Eva Braun.

Granted, it's a weak division, but Clinton shades Poppy.

--- Clinton
1.5 Bush Sr.
8.0 Reagan
11.0 Carter
81.5 Dubya
Click to expand...

Even here, I don't think you're allowed to say "bias aside" and then compare Slick Willie to Jesus in the same paragraph.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Maybe it's profane and uncalled-for, but can you imagine if Albert Gore Jr. had been the U.S. President? I just shuddered just now. He's as narcissistic as Big Bill.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

To further my point:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/poll.republicans.democrats/index.html

Polls can say what you want them too, but my point about people getting way too excited about the next election stands. First, since when is popularity in the 50's a bad thing? Next, if the GOP is less trusted on almost all major issues even at this point, don't they have a lot more work to do in order to gain seats next time around? Perspective, people.


geezer said:
lost your credibility a little early in that rant. Talk about selective memories.
Clinton, though, has had a very positively productive post-white house career. The man gets a lot of good things done (and makes an incredible bundle of moolah doing it. kapitalist pig).
Click to expand...

What didn't you like about Clinton's Presidency? The balanced budgets? The paying down of the deficit? The 22M jobs created? How we fought wars, won them, then left and democratic governments took over (Bosnia, Kosovo).

BTW - If Gore had been President, he pledged to eliminate the federal deficit by 2016. Not sure he would have done it, but why, as a conservative, do you shudder at the thought of a deficit cutting President. :confused: What exactly do you stand for anyway?
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Rover said:
What didn't you like about Clinton's Presidency? The balanced budgets? The paying down of the deficit? The 22M jobs created? How we fought wars, won them, then left and democratic governments took over (Bosnia, Kosovo).
Click to expand...
Clinton did a decent job, for several years of hiding out and feeding his juvenile fantasies while riding the wave handed him by better men. It all came crashing down, of course, and since 9/11 we've been aware of how dangerously self-serving he was.

Rover said:
BTW - If Gore had been President, he pledged to eliminate the federal deficit by 2016. Not sure he would have done it, but why, as a conservative, do you shudder at the thought of a deficit cutting President. :confused: What exactly do you stand for anyway?
Click to expand...
If after 8 months of Obama you're still confused between what liberals "pledge" while running for office and what they'll try to pull off while in power, you're beyond hope. Gore would do anything to stop the human race from using water, oxygen, food, internal combustion engines etc. that it was in his power to do. He's insane.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Umm....9/11 happened 9 months into Bush's presidency. While its unknown if it would have happened under Clinton's watch, I'll direct your attention the the Y2K terrorist plots foiled under his watch.

Next, Gore, as a continuation of Clinton's economic policies, would have inherited a team with a proven track record of deficit reduction. The problem is people like you are your own worst enemy. You say you want balanced budgets, but then vote and speak against the people with an actual history of achievement in doing so. That makes no sense.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Rover said:
Umm....9/11 happened 9 months into Bush's presidency. .
Click to expand...
Yes. Way too little, way too late in the "it's a dangerous world" department.
Rover said:
Next, Gore, as a continuation of Clinton's economic policies, would have inherited a team with a proven track record of deficit reduction. The problem is people like you are your own worst enemy. You say you want balanced budgets, but then vote and speak against the people with an actual history of achievement in doing so. That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I'm still bitter about being conned into supporting Obama last year... "I'll go through the federal budget line-by-line etc. etc."; but I'll admit it makes no sense to bash the 'Gore presidency' and leave it at that as a pointless exercise.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Rover said:
Umm....9/11 happened 9 months into Bush's presidency. While its unknown if it would have happened under Clinton's watch, I'll direct your attention the the Y2K terrorist plots foiled under his watch..
Click to expand...

you also including the chance to off OBL that they passed on because of preoccupation with a hummer scandal?!?!? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

geezer said:
Maybe it's profane and uncalled-for, but can you imagine if Albert Gore Jr. had been the U.S. President? I just shuddered just now. He's as narcissistic as Big Bill.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the eight year nap under his presidency would have been refreshing. :D
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

mookie1995 said:
you also including the chance to off OBL that they passed on because of preoccupation with a hummer scandal?!?!? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The attempt to off OBL missed by an hour or something. To date, the closest we've come to offing him. Furthermore, if he was so easy to catch, why isn't he yet in custody after almost 8 years of boots on the ground chasing him around? That makes no sense.

geezer,


Sooo....we shouldn't hold Bush responsible for national security 9 months into his Presidency? Does that mean you still don't hold Obama responsible for anything that's happened under his watch so far, because your postings sure indicate differently, and we're not at the same point in Obama's Presidency yet. :confused:
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Rover said:
geezer,
Sooo....we shouldn't hold Bush responsible for national security 9 months into his Presidency? Does that mean you still don't hold Obama responsible for anything that's happened under his watch so far, because your postings sure indicate differently, and we're not at the same point in Obama's Presidency yet. :confused:
Click to expand...

I stated the opposite of what you somehow inferred: "way too little, way too late," were my words. Bush pre 9/11 is as much to blame as Clinton was for weak security.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

geezer said:
I stated the opposite of what you somehow inferred: "way too little, way too late," were my words. Bush pre 9/11 is as much to blame as Clinton was for weak security.
Click to expand...

He's more responsible. It happened under him. Sayings "they're equally responsible" is a cop out IMHO. Give Bush credit all you want for the country not getting hit again, but if something similar happens now, how many righties out there do you think would be giving Obama a pass? I'm thinking...maybe.....zero?
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

Rover said:
He's more responsible. It happened under him. Sayings "they're equally responsible" is a cop out IMHO. Give Bush credit all you want for the country not getting hit again, but if something similar happens now, how many righties out there do you think would be giving Obama a pass? I'm thinking...maybe.....zero?
Click to expand...

Once more, I'm not giving him a pass. In a perfect world, he would have recognized the lack of intelligence on the islamo-fascist groups, implemented new security policy immediately, and prevented the attack. The plans for which had reportedly been circulating long before 2001.
Similarly, I won't have Obama a pass for continuing Bush "throw borrowed money at it" policy that has led to a 9.7% unemployment rate today. It takes a group effort to screw up so horribly.
 
Re: Obama V: For Vendetta

A question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

If its big news if Obama's rating goes down to 50% for one news cycle, why isn't it big news if it goes up to 55%? If we are to live and die by approval ratings to forecast an election 14 months from now, shouldn't we see some updated predictions from the GOP gains of 100 seats in the House and 33 in the Senate that I've been reading about. :confused: ;) :rolleyes:

Also, I'll ask again in all seriousness - since when is an approval rating in the 50's a bad thing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top