Media waking–up to the failure of.......Obama
-
Footwedge
First of all. I didn't vote for Obama. Although I was happy to see him win the election.Writerbuckeye wrote:
Here we go again...making comparisons where NONE are warranted.Footwedge wrote:
Whereby Obama has not been as transparent as I would like, he is head and shoulders over the last guy in power...and it's not even close. Center...start a thread on that subject..I would love to compare and contrast....starting with the cost of wars hidden by the last guy, yet open booked with the new guy.CenterBHSFan wrote: Footie,
That was the other point Writer made.TRANSPARENCY.
The discussion wasn't whether Obama was more or less transparent than his predecessor -- it was the FACT that Obama promised transparency and made it a key point of his campaign, and has gone back on that to the point that calling him a liar is being kind.
Bush is GONE, folks. Your guy is in office. Try defending his (often indefensible) actions instead of making some bogus comparison to the last president.
I have pointed out clearly that Obama has brought more transparency that the last guy brought to the table.
And I will continue to show your hypocracy by comparing and contrasting the new guy with the old guy in power.
Read McLelland's book on Bush's agenda in keeping America completely in the dark on such things as
1. Violation of human rights via the Patriot Act
2. Torture...kept under wraps
3. Manipulation of intelligence and not being forthcoming with the American people.
4. Firing a military head that placed at the cost of the Iraq war at 50 billion/annum...when he wanted the costs kept hush-hush.
6. Hiding the true cost of war...by not including these costs in the defense budget..
...and on and on and on it goes.
Just because the last guy doesn't run things today, it doesn't absolve him for many of our present day conundrums. No president has ever used a chalk board eraser upon entering the White House on any given January 20th. -
Footwedge
No, Obama's course of action is in fact intertwined with what the last guy did. It's a fact of life.queencitybuckeye wrote:
Is that the level of debate you want, though? The political equivalent of Rams vs. Browns?Footwedge wrote: Maybe you find my references to Bush 43 annoying. Sorry. These are political boards and as such, I will voice my opinion comparing the new guy with the old guy.
Obama's performance is what it is without regard to whether the previous officeholder was the best ever, the worst, or somewhere in between.
Do you think that Reagan didn't inherent a plethora of problems from the Carter administration? Did you know that Reagan's economy during 81, 82, and 83 were terrible? Do you not concede that stagflation had a hand in Reagan's poor performance regarding his first 3 years in power?
Again, if people want to bash Obama, find some material that is both relevant and philosophicaly different from the last guy in power.
Otherwise, it is just partisan hackery spewing from political pundits from the radical right. -
CenterBHSFan
No, I think that's totally wrong.
I can have my opinions or hold President Obama responsible and/or accountable for his actions without throwing anybody else in with him.
What do you mean you have to compare in order to hold one person responsible or accountable?
What? -
CenterBHSFan
No, that's ok. I'll continue to criticize or complain about any one person I want to, much like you.Want to complain about Obama? Then complain about things that he's done differently from Bush. That makes for interesting debate.
Again, it happens on every thread many many times. How many reminders does one need?Anyone that bashes Obama for transparency needs to be reminded about how horrible the last guy was in this regard.
What I'm saying is that if you want to keep beating that drum, ..ok...whatever... but you're not telling anybody something that they don't already know. (unless they've got a severe short-term memory loss, if that's the case, my apologies to those that suffer!)
Well, if people want to think that I'm only one-sided, that is fine with me. I can't worry too much about that.Without fairness in posting, one's credibility on political boards becomes flawed...and opens the door to being sent into the "partisan hack" columns...both left or right. -
Writerbuckeye
Hilarious.
You have to judge one person by comparing him to his predecessor?
People stand on their own merits and character -- or they don't.
Deliberately bringing in an unnecessary and unrelated issue is called a strawman. It's a failed way to debate and you know it.
If Obama can't stand on his own merits, then he doesn't deserve the position he holds.
It really is that simple.
When you tell me there has to be a comparison, it tells me very clearly that you have no argument. -
Footwedge
Let me try one last time.CenterBHSFan wrote: No, I think that's totally wrong.
I can have my opinions or hold President Obama responsible and/or accountable for his actions without throwing anybody else in with him.
President A shits on the white house carpet. His partisan folk sweep the piles under the rug.
President B gets elected by the other team and shits on the white House carpet....and now cry bloody foul for shitting on the exact same carpet.
Let's take it away from ny little analogy here.
What specifically has Obama done differently that Bush did. Be specific. He has done a few things differently, but a much bigger claim can be made that O=W.
Let me start the "sharing of ideas" for all to see.
1. Bush believed in expanding wars...without a defined victory strategy or an exit strategy. Same as Obama.
2. Bush enacted the Patriot Act, violating habeous corpus constitutional rights to suspected terrorists. Obama has made no effort to change that. O=B
3. Bush was elected in large part on his the false pretence of not policing the world, did not believe in nation building, and thought all wars should have in place an exit strategy. Obama indirectly said the same things....only he accepted the occupation of Afghanistan as the "good war" , (An oxymoronic statement if there ever was one, BTW)
Obama promised more transparency...because the American people did not like all the clandestine goings on with the previous admin. So far, he has been much more transparent than the last guy, but not transparent enough. Again O=W.
Since the FDR days...every president has deficit spent during their administration, with the only possible exception being Dwight D Ike. During his reign of power, the national debt stablized.
Birth control issue O=W
Cutting taxes O=W .. the only asterick would be for the top 5%, who, have seen there wealth rise exponentially over the upper middle class, the middle class, the lower middle class, and the poor...(data for the last 3 decades...references are available for any and all)
You took one sentence completely out of the context of the paragraphs that I wrote.What do you mean you have to compare in order to hold one person responsible or accountable?
What?
That wasn't nice. And I repeat now for the 4th time on this thread....if you have a beef with Obama, then make it a beef that differs from what the last guy did.
Another example. (You) The Browns should bench Quinn because he throws a lot of interceptions. (me) Well Anderson threw a ton of interceptions too. (You) well, we're not talking about him....so what Anderson did is totally irrelevant.
I have no idea why you cannot comprehend this basic premise.
But remember, I am not arguing with you, I'm simply sharing my ideas with you...
-
Red_Skin_Pride
I work in a job which is probably "under" most of you, but a job none the less, that feels and bends to even the slightest vibrations of the economy. When it starts to go downhill, we feel it before almost every other industry. When it starts to recover, we feel it before almost every other industry. When your income depends on the generosity of others, you get a feel REAL quick for how your fellow citizens are doing in terms of their incomes.Belly35 wrote: Could it be that the National Media is waking-up and willing to view the Public Servant Obama Administration for what it is ….failure?
http://video.rr.com/?v=_q0S7afe3C86yR1GWMKC6A_1PcRamVJg
HOW IS THAT OBAMA CHANGE WORKING OUT FOR YOU NOW
MORE CHANGE LESS CHANGE FOR YOU
That being said, I love seeing people who drive around with their little "Bush/Cheney" bumperstickers on their cars, and of course "How's that change working out for you now", apparently a slogan you like to trumpet, because why? Unless you have a different President than the rest of us, you just look retarded.
And to answer your question, and the question of all those bumperstickers, BETTER THAN THE LAST TWO YEARS BEFORE HE WAS IN OFFICE, THANKS. When dumbass #2 was serving his second term (dumbass #1 being daddy bush), our industry, again almost always the FIRST to feel the economic trend, started to take a downturn in 2007. It was in a full tailspin by the middle of last year (2008). I'm sure that was Obama's fault as well. Since the beginning of this year, buisiness has started to recover; is it shooting up drastically? No. But it is steadily increasing, little by little. For the first time in over two years, (starting in June of this year) we posted back to back months of positive revenue relative to the previous month. That string is now up to 5 months and counting.
I love that Republicans get a President in office for EIGHT FULL YEARS, who leaves the economy ten times worse than he found it, the largest debt we've had since...guess who? George Bush Sr. was in office, and then they turn around and BITCH about the current administration less than a year into the term. Maybe you're underestimating just how bad Georgie fcked up the economy?? It may take a decade to get it back if it EVER does. Maybe you should take a look at the source, before you point fingers. And guess what? If McCain had been elected, it would be even worse? Why? Same idiotic, outdated policy, different President. See>>beating a dead horse. But hey, it would have at least been a little better, at least McCain could string more than 5 words together without stuttering 4 times or making up a completely new word. -
Red_Skin_Pride
What merits did our last president "stand on"?Writerbuckeye wrote: Hilarious.
You have to judge one person by comparing him to his predecessor?
People stand on their own merits and character -- or they don't.
Deliberately bringing in an unnecessary and unrelated issue is called a strawman. It's a failed way to debate and you know it.
If Obama can't stand on his own merits, then he doesn't deserve the position he holds.
It really is that simple.
When you tell me there has to be a comparison, it tells me very clearly that you have no argument. -
believer
Nearly a year into the BHO Administration and I marvel over the left's continued insistence on ignoring the shortcomings of the now not so Anointed One by pointing out the failings of "W'".Red_Skin_Pride wrote:What merits did our last president "stand on"?
You can't change the past so let's look at the now shall we? -
CenterBHSFan
Footie,
Loved it!! hahahaThat wasn't nice. -
CenterBHSFan
Footie,
And I repeat now for the 4th time on this thread....if you have a beef with Obama, then make it a beef that differs from what the last guy did.
Here's the thing. I've already (between the last site and this one) have stated many, MANY times the whole "Of course Obama is only doing what any other President got away with" or "Obama is not the first President who did __________", or even something like "Obama's administration isn't the first one to disregard the Constitution".
But, I'm kinda over that now. I have moved on.
Look. I'm not trying to defend Bush or anything. As far as Bush goes, I was probably just as sick of him (2nd term) as anybody else on alot of things. I think he dropped the ball in alot of areas.
But, the one difference is that I didn't keep bringing Clinton into it. Sure, I did do it a few times. But the simple fact of the matter is, President Bush didn't need to hold anybody's hand to make him look like an ass or to make terrible choices. He could pull that off by himself and I gave him the heat for it. Trust me, if I'd had had posted on the political forum before last year, you and everybody else would have saw me rip Bush to shreds on ALOT of things. I was very critical of him. But, that's what I do. I'm a hard person to politically satisfy. Nobody has been safe since Clinton's second term (where I started getting sick of him, too).
Obama is no different to me.
In the beginning, I held Bush up there next to him on a few things. Because, each new President does inherit ALL the bad things from the preceeding President. But, now that it is redundant to me, I'm holding Obama accountable/being critical of Obama on his own merits.
Because there comes a time for that.
Just last week - I stated on another thread that I didn't think Obama would bring up the whole "Bush Bashing" thing. I thought that Obama would be ready. Because I was truly giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt that he was going to start standing on his own two feet concerning whatever actions/decisions that were HIS and HIS alone. That was not the case. And I now owe Jmog alot of internet money because of it (haha!)
I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree that we have different timelines concerning this.
I think that Obama is far enough into his Presidency to stop with the whole Bush thing.
You don't.
Fair enough! -
fish82
If he was still the President, then your question would be almost relevant.Red_Skin_Pride wrote:
What merits did our last president "stand on"?Writerbuckeye wrote: Hilarious.
You have to judge one person by comparing him to his predecessor?
People stand on their own merits and character -- or they don't.
Deliberately bringing in an unnecessary and unrelated issue is called a strawman. It's a failed way to debate and you know it.
If Obama can't stand on his own merits, then he doesn't deserve the position he holds.
It really is that simple.
When you tell me there has to be a comparison, it tells me very clearly that you have no argument.