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 XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Patman said:
Each day that passes, the president becomes more and more as I believe him to be... going to be a rough two years ahead.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I don't know why I'm surprised by Obama or MTU hockey sucking anymore, but I expected his rebound to take root by now, post-election, and he continually disappoints. Solving the cost of the "tax cut stimulus" by boosting corn ethanol subsidies? I thought these were already widely regarded as the symbol of stupid, wasteful government spending and market manipulation? Or is Amtrak still the standard bearer? The man apparently just lacks any kind of critical thinking skill and/or honesty. And leaving Big Bill alone at the podium, big deal or not, appeared cowardly and distracted. "I've got more important things (Michelle's party) to attend to, I can't be bothered with this crap"
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Whoever told him that betraying your base and the middle was a good idea needs to be fired. The decisions he has made are just downright stupid. The only thing people hate more than a liar is a weakling, and despite having everything he needed to pass his agenda he ran away scared because Fox News said bad things about him. (this is true of all Dems) He could have made the hard decisions, the ones that werent going to be popular right away (and may have been bad overall but that isnt the point of this discussion) and been a leader people in the end would probably back (we love a guy that is decisive) instead he backed down from every fight. He is like the nerdy kid that gets made fun of all the time...sure in the afternoon special that kid is the winner because he turns a blind eye and just lives his life BUT THIS AINT AN AFTERNOON SPECIAL! In real life all ignoring does is make them yell louder. Stand up and be counted, show the balls you did in the election...

The moment I truly lost faith in him was when that dbag called him a liar when he spoke in front of Congress. He should have gone on the attack the next day, not ripping the guy himself but using him as an example of everything that is wrong with Washington today. The GOP were turning him into a folkhero yet the Dems and their leader just stared at him and ignored him. That could have been a defining moment, it should have been, instead he just bent over and took it like he does everything else.

He got nothing done on his domestic agenda, nothing and his international agenda is a joke. The POS Health Care Bill means zero because it is not 1/10th of what he was pushing for. He was so afraid to fail he didnt try. Add in the wars are still on, Gitmo aint closed, he ignored gay rights at every turn, the economy is a mess...the guy is terrible. To use a football analogy, he is playing aa prevent defense, and it is preventing him from actually doing anything of value.

The GOP has no one that will be an improvement at this point which might be the only reason he doesnt wash out in the next election. All of these guys are frauds of the same cloth they just pretend they arent the same.
 
Last edited:
dxmnkd316 said:
Oh please, dark days? Under clinton? The only dark days were when the GOP had their epic cock block going on.
Click to expand...

What he meant was that attraction to a single leader - even in a Democracy - can be a bad thing. Hitler was elected and people loved him. People loved FDR, Reagan and Bush II. When people start following a charismatic leader they stop thinking critically and just follow the herd...and that can lead to them getting sheered with the rest of the sheep. He wasn't (I think) referring to dark days under Clinton's leadership.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
What he meant was that attraction to a single leader - even in a Democracy - can be a bad thing. Hitler was elected and people loved him. People loved FDR, Reagan and Bush II. When people start following a charismatic leader they stop thinking critically and just follow the herd...and that can lead to them getting sheered with the rest of the sheep. He wasn't (I think) referring to dark days under Clinton's leadership.
Click to expand...

Point taken. i must have misread it.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Way way back on one of the election threads I drew out a comparison of Obama and McCain as two senior managers in a company and somebody has to decide which one to promote into the big division director job now that the old guy is retiring due to the struggles of the division...there was no conclusion, just pros and cons. Obama had the charisma, ideas and energy but was untested, he had the highest upside but the lack of experience could be a risk. McCain, better connected, knows 'how it all works', nowhere near as high upside, not charismatic, not a lot of new ideas...could be a wet blanket and make things worse. My point was that the wise CEO would have to correctly predict what kind of leader we needed and what the risks were for each.

You bring in the new guy with all the ideas and credibility can suffer if those bold ideas fall flat, the other guy comes in and doesn't change much and you trudge along until it is too late. Neither was a slam dunk to succeed or fail.

I could understand the people in the division wanting the new guy, shake things up, create some excitement...I can see why they wouldn't want the more established guy. Who knows what we'd all be upset about if McCain was elected...could be a lot worse, could be better. We got who we got, this election had no dangling chads, he was the clear people's choice winner. It is tough going when your first big role is in a crisis and this job isn't a great one for OJT.

But, I don't think people should be so surprised it has been hard for Obama, it would be hard for anybody and the economic times can make a good guy look bad. Expectations were too high, the problems deeper than people thought, and once momentum and credibility start to suffer, it gets even harder, no matter who you are.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

pirate said:
Way way back on one of the election threads I drew out a comparison of Obama and McCain as two senior managers in a company and somebody has to decide which one to promote into the big division director job now that the old guy is retiring due to the struggles of the division...there was no conclusion, just pros and cons. Obama had the charisma, ideas and energy but was untested, he had the highest upside but the lack of experience could be a risk. McCain, better connected, knows 'how it all works', nowhere near as high upside, not charismatic, not a lot of new ideas...could be a wet blanket and make things worse. My point was that the wise CEO would have to correctly predict what kind of leader we needed and what the risks were for each.

You bring in the new guy with all the ideas and credibility can suffer if those bold ideas fall flat, the other guy comes in and doesn't change much and you trudge along until it is too late. Neither was a slam dunk to succeed or fail.

I could understand the people in the division wanting the new guy, shake things up, create some excitement...I can see why they wouldn't want the more established guy. Who knows what we'd all be upset about if McCain was elected...could be a lot worse, could be better. We got who we got, this election had no dangling chads, he was the clear people's choice winner. It is tough going when your first big role is in a crisis and this job isn't a great one for OJT.

But, I don't think people should be so surprised it has been hard for Obama, it would be hard for anybody and the economic times can make a good guy look bad. Expectations were too high, the problems deeper than people thought, and once momentum and credibility start to suffer, it gets even harder, no matter who you are.
Click to expand...

Good post.

Its important to keep things in context. The country was in horrible shape when Obama came in. To date, he hasn't brought the change many of us would have wanted...to date, he has delivered a stable platform for economic recovery. Just as with W in 2003...there is far more time where O will cement his legacy.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is coming under fire from liberal groups for suggesting that federal lawmakers and regulators exist to "serve the banks."

Bachus, who is poised to oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul, made the comment in an interview with The Birmingham News.

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks," he said.
Click to expand...

And the lions are there to serve the gazelles.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

pirate said:
At what point in history would you have eliminated the US military? 1800? Civil War? Before WWI? After WWI? WWII? Cold War?
Click to expand...

If you really want to mess him up, ask him at which point(s) in history we eliminated national defense from the constitution and added in thousands of unnecessary social/entitlement programs costing billions annually.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

geezer said:
Yeah... I don't know why I'm surprised by Obama or MTU hockey sucking anymore, but I expected his rebound to take root by now, post-election, and he continually disappoints. Solving the cost of the "tax cut stimulus" by boosting corn ethanol subsidies? I thought these were already widely regarded as the symbol of stupid, wasteful government spending and market manipulation? Or is Amtrak still the standard bearer? The man apparently just lacks any kind of critical thinking skill and/or honesty. And leaving Big Bill alone at the podium, big deal or not, appeared cowardly and distracted. "I've got more important things (Michelle's party) to attend to, I can't be bothered with this crap"
Click to expand...
To give BHO credit, it was the Senate that put the ethanol credit in. We have to retire the old farts or wait for the Grim Reaper (God's Death Panel) to work his magic.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

dropthatpuck said:
If you really want to mess him up, ask him at which point(s) in history we eliminated national defense from the constitution and added in thousands of unnecessary social/entitlement programs costing billions annually.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're back. I'm gonna hijack this thread before you disappear for another month and ask if you're going to be in Beantown for the HE Semis and Finals. I'm checking on getting group tickets one or both nights and wondered if you were interested. I'll have details once I get them from the Garden.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Soooo - imagine the reaction of the MSM is a certain former Governor slipped up like this. I'm just sayin'... :rolleyes:

President Obama thanked a host of Democrats and Republicans on Monday for helping to pass a childhood nutrition bill -- including the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell.

Obama goofed up on McConnell's name, though, calling him "Mike" and moving on without correcting himself.
Click to expand...

<param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=709261164001&playerID=19407224001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=709261164001&playerID=19407224001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

dropthatpuck said:
If you really want to mess him up, ask him at which point(s) in history we eliminated national defense from the constitution and added in thousands of unnecessary social/entitlement programs costing billions annually.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution say our govt needs to overspend to the tune of half of the world's military? I don't care how you try to justify it.

Certainly not one of the board's 'fiscal' conservatives.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

joecct said:
To give BHO credit, it was the Senate that put the ethanol credit in. We have to retire the old farts or wait for the Grim Reaper (God's Death Panel) to work his magic.
Click to expand...

ethanol... increasing cereal 50 cents to decrease gas prices by a cent... at our expense.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Patman said:
ethanol... increasing cereal 50 cents to decrease gas prices by a cent... at our expense.
Click to expand...

How could it decrease gas prices when its takes 30% more energy to produce a gallon of E10?
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
And the lions are there to serve the gazelles.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why anyone clamoring for Republican leadership needs to realize how boned we are no matter which way Congress swings.

Oh, and the ethanol thing? I think of it long term. Name a country better suited to start growing its own fuel on an annual basis once we start to realize that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Granted, wind and solar energy should (hopefully) be more viable options by then, but ethanol is a nice way to hedge our bets without having to rely on nuclear energy.
 
Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Priceless said:
And the lions are there to serve the gazelles.
Click to expand...

A bad choice of words for Spencer...one thing we all need to be reminded...and I quote "It's the economy, stupid". Our economy doesn't run on regulations, and more regulations will not stimulate the economy. Now, should business be unchecked? NO. But, we won't increase jobs or stimulate growth by passing more and more regulations. Like budget cutting in a company, you can't cut your way to profitability over the long term. It is a great knee jerk reaction to experience a problem and decide to completely eliminate the chance of it ever recurring, the Carl Spackler method. It takes some brains, some courage and some work to solve the problem without killing all the golfers; DC has a shortage of all three.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top