Does anybody, ANYBODY think Obama and the other

[Guest]

desperate dems come off with any credibility in their current talking points of acknowledging the economy is the priority?
In his rah-rah campaign speech yesterday Obama came off as a comical, cheap shot, I can lower myself to your level bullsh_ _ er. Nothing more!!!!!!!!!!

And the old advice this is tougher than we thought....will take longer than we think...and this new round of $50 billion will not really show any effect until some time next year.

Where was the priority a year ago? Remember when he was bailing out the bank execs and the car execs?
Remember when the only thing discussed was health care?

Isn't it amazing his priority along with Nancy and Harry was to get health care reform passed whether we liked it or not....whether anybody knew what was in the bill or not.....AND THEY PASSED IT! The economy was no better then. The unemployment was as it is today. But some how that was just not as important as passing something we the people did not need.

Does anybody....ANYBODY think Obama and the desperate dems come of with ANY credibility?

OF COURSE NOT. All one has to do is look at the record. Look back at the promises. Look back at their care less attitude.

We can't get rid of Obama in the November 2010 election, but we sure can take his check book away and make him an early, emasculated lame duck for 2012.

Does anybody buy what he is currently peddaling?

btk

[Guest]

it seems that the idealistic and foolishly naive young voters still buy it...listening to michael savage last night, cannot believe that younger people still call in and defend obama's policies with no substantial reasons...they are a product of our secular schools and liberal education system so it is possible that unless we oldsters really try to talk some sense into them, they are going to be a vote toward the socialism of our nation.

[Guest]

it seems that the idealistic and foolishly naive young voters still buy it...listening to michael savage last night, cannot believe that younger people still call in and defend obama's policies with no substantial reasons...they are a product of our secular schools and liberal education system so it is possible that unless we oldsters really try to talk some sense into them, they are going to be a vote toward the socialism of our nation.

Just to check the regular dose of absolute certainty from you folks who are so sure of everything,
and your continued adolescent labeling as 'how could anyone', 'idealistic', 'foolish' and 'naive'
of anyone is who disagrees with you...

I'm a person who has literally scores of reasons and explanations for why the Obama administration is fundamentally on the right track, making impressive progress with an enormously challenging situation. Many of my statements have appeared here, often with no specific attempt to rebut from those so critical of the administration.

Just a little example: I cited the poll conducted by Siena College in which lots of college history professors were asked to rate all of the US Presidents in terms of overall effectiveness or "greatness". President Obama was rated 15th. The counter-argument: "what else can you expect from "academia"!"

I'll admit that President Obama is not perfect. Any of his actions and statements can be subject to some form of criticism. But his short legacy is already one of effective leadership. I also feel strongly that much of that effectiveness will not be fully evident until a decade, two or more.

A little example of that too: The President's opponents continue to insist upon how Social Security must be protected at all costs. I submit if you'd have been there to holler about it in the 30's you would railed at that Socialist Roosevelt and said the exact same things you now say about health care reform.

And as I've also said a number of times, this forum would be so much better without the name calling, ridicule and "absolute truth".

[Guest]

Just to check the regular dose of absolute certainty from you folks who are so sure of everything,
and your continued adolescent labeling as 'how could anyone', 'idealistic', 'foolish' and 'naive'
of anyone is who disagrees with you...

I'm a person who has literally scores of reasons and explanations for why the Obama administration is fundamentally on the right track, making impressive progress with an enormously challenging situation. Many of my statements have appeared here, often with no specific attempt to rebut from those so critical of the administration.

Just a little example: I cited the poll conducted by Siena College in which lots of college history professors were asked to rate all of the US Presidents in terms of overall effectiveness or "greatness". President Obama was rated 15th. The counter-argument: "what else can you expect from "academia"!"

I'll admit that President Obama is not perfect. Any of his actions and statements can be subject to some form of criticism. But his short legacy is already one of effective leadership. I also feel strongly that much of that effectiveness will not be fully evident until a decade, two or more.

A little example of that too: The President's opponents continue to insist upon how Social Security must be protected at all costs. I submit if you'd have been there to holler about it in the 30's you would railed at that Socialist Roosevelt and said the exact same things you now say about health care reform.

And as I've also said a number of times, this forum would be so much better without the name calling, ridicule and "absolute truth".

Everybody, chachacha included, is entitled to their opinions. Yes, that even includes you. Your whole entire post is nothing but opinions and you're welcome to them no matter how off the mark and ill thought out some of us think they are. Again, that's only my opinion.
You talk about name calling, but is your insulting chachacha any more righteous? I'm sure she doesn't mind as we conservatives aren't normally as annoyingly sensitive as you people of the liberal persuasion. Again, only my opinion.

[Guest]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but does anyone know whatever happened to Donna2, who was VERY active on this political thread? It seems she was here one day and then TOTALLY disappeared the next.:confused:

[Guest]

it seems that the idealistic and foolishly naive young voters still buy it...listening to michael savage last night, cannot believe that younger people still call in and defend obama's policies with no substantial reasons...they are a product of our secular schools and liberal education system so it is possible that unless we oldsters really try to talk some sense into them, they are going to be a vote toward the socialism of our nation.

now there's an objective voice of reason.

[Guest]

Everybody, chachacha included, is entitled to their opinions. Yes, that even includes you.

I like what Harlan Ellison said in response to a comment like that..

"No, everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion!"

[Guest]

ignore the message/issue/question. Typical political side step of the question(s)/issues.

btk

[Guest]

I like what Harlan Ellison said in response to a comment like that..

"No, everyone is entitled to an INFORMED opinion!"

And who will be the arbiter of offered opinions to deduce whether the offerer is informed or not? Harlan Ellison sounds like a pompous jerk.

[Guest]

just want to say that i take absolutely no personal offense at any remarks of those who do not agree with me...but i stand by my opinion of obama...i have lived in socialist countries and see us heading in that direction at breakneck speed, and also at break the bank speed. these are not the values and traditions which made America great. and those who cannot realize that this whole economic crisis came about because of democratic insistence that everyone should be able to buy a home they cannot afford and that fannie mae and freddie mac needed no regulation (i can still see barnie frank insisting on this when Bush tried to regulate them) have no informed knowledge of basic economics. as for social security, if we who worked had been allowed to invest our own funds plus the funds our employers had to pay into it, most of us would be better off now. instead those funds were plundered for other projects and the system is nearly useless as a retirement fund. and consider the cost to the taxpayers of administering this program. the only job growth which obama seems to take credit for is such things as paying states to keep teachers, firemen, police etc which the states cannot really keep paying for indefinitely, and neither can we...also government jobs such as new IRS agents, which will do nothing to increase our productivity, only infringe more on businesses while unemployment in the private sector rises to socialist country standards.

[Guest]

ignore the message/issue/question. Typical political side step of the question(s)/issues.

btk

You asked the question: "how could ANYBODY?" I answered it: I, for one.

And I'll say it again, the explanations of why the administration is on a effective track have appeared here before. Despite your regular response about ducking the issues when someone dares to disagree with you, I haven't ducked the issues. Only in one particular thread, "Fascism is Still With Us", have I recently been able to engage is a nice, intelligent, civil debate with a person of different political views. Unfortunately, that person seems to have lost interest.

I'm willing to start again, but it would be more fun to respond to something that's not already an insult.

[Guest]

Oh Harlan could be a real opinionted jerk. For those who don't know, he's one of the more famous science fiction writers.

But the point he was making is valid nonetheless. Having an opinion is one thing. Having one that you've researched - and not just to find facts to back up 'your side' - is much more important. I mean, there's a guy out in western MA who is a VERY good friend of mine but politically, he's WAY out in left field for my tastes. However, he's thought it through. He and I fundamentally disagree on the role of government but at least his opinions are internally consistent. I can respect that while thoroughly disagreeing with him.

An example of what I'm talking about..

"Obama is a socialist - he took over GM!" Well, that's true but only to a degree. But it *ignores* the fact that the government is proceeding to divest it's GM holding (and others). True socialism would have the government nationalizing GM and KEEPING it. The same holds true for Citibank.

[Guest]

We support our President.

[Guest]

the government is not "divesting" itself of GM and Citibank...rather, these companies are trying desperately to pay back the money to get out from under the myriad rules and regulations attached to it.

[Guest]

Is your last name Lewinsky?

Billthkid: Your picture on this thread seems to depict your attitude, very hostile..

I'm not a Demo nor a Repub., I'm an American....Seems like this forum is not capable of responsible debate without name calling!

[Guest]

the government is not "divesting" itself of GM and Citibank...rather, these companies are trying desperately to pay back the money to get out from under the myriad rules and regulations attached to it.

Boy, you've hit the nail on the head! These companies ARE paying back what they owe. Thousands are still working. The regulations are keeping them on track until they get out of the mess THEY created through greed and mismanagement. Thankfully, (especially for those still working), the companies were GIVEN A CHANCE, and a short leash, so they wouldn't screw up again. We desperately need to maintain our manufacturing base. Considering the situation two years ago, how can you see this as anything but win-win?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=chachacha;290502]just want to say that i take absolutely no personal offense at any remarks of those who do not agree with me...but i stand by my opinion of obama...i have lived in socialist countries and see us heading in that direction at breakneck speed, and also at break the bank speed.

Chachacha,

Excellent post!

I have some dear friends (a married couple) who grew up in China and immigrated to the USA while in graduate school. Having experienced life in a communist China and now after having lived in the US for almost 25 years they don't take their freedom for granted.

They know more about American history than most natural born Americans and they believe the Obama administration and the progressive democrats are extremely dangerous to the stability of our country.

How ANYONE can defend Obama is beyond me and the other 57% of Americans who feel he is unqualified to lead our country.

Annabelle

[Guest]

Is your last name Lewinsky?

Billthkid: Your picture on this thread seems to depict your attitude, very hostile..

I'm not a Demo nor a Repub., I'm an American....Seems like this forum is not capable of responsible debate without name calling!

Jebartle,

Surely you can't expect anyone (of any political party) to take your posts such as the one above seriously?

Perhaps an objective critique of your own opinions would help.....you think?

Annabelle

[Guest]

Is your last name Lewinsky?

Billthkid: Your picture on this thread seems to depict your attitude, very hostile..

I'm not a Demo nor a Repub., I'm an American....Seems like this forum is not capable of responsible debate without name calling!

I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Talk about name calling

[Guest]

Boy, you've hit the nail on the head! These companies ARE paying back what they owe. Thousands are still working. The regulations are keeping them on track until they get out of the mess THEY created through greed and mismanagement. Thankfully, (especially for those still working), the companies were GIVEN A CHANCE, and a short leash, so they wouldn't screw up again. We desperately need to maintain our manufacturing base. Considering the situation two years ago, how can you see this as anything but win-win?

their bias against anything Obama does. Of course, they don't admit that the whole mess was created by the prior administration because that would require an objective, unemotional thought process of which they are incapable.

[Guest]

their bias against anything Obama does. Of course, they don't admit that the whole mess was created by the prior administration because that would require an objective, unemotional thought process of which they are incapable.


Me thinks Obama and his supporters will continue to whine and blame Bush until NO ONE (including themselves) believes that ridiculous argument.

Regardless of who thinks whom is responsible for this "mess" ...... the fact is we have a President who has done nothing to get us out of it.

Annabelle

[Guest]

ceejay, I have wondered, also, about what happened to Donna 2. I miss her.

[Guest]

Chachacha: No, I mean the government IS divesting itself of the ownership position it has in Citibank and General Motors. This is in ADDITION to the companies paying back loans.

I own some stock in Citibank and a few months ago the government announced that it was preparing to sell it's shares. The United States government currently (well, as of July) owns 27% of Citibank as partial collateral for the bailout funds. The discussion has been over what the schedule is going to be for the government to sell it's shares and what effect that will have on other shareholders (like myself) in the form of price fluctuations. So far, even though Citibank is down from a recent high around $5/share, the government still stands to make a profit on the shares.

GM started filing paperwork in August to pave the way for an IPO (Initial Public Offering). This is to get GM back to being traded on the stock exchange and it's been the administrations stated intention to sell it's shares in GM just like it's doing with Citibank. The government currently owns 61% of General Motors. It appears highly unlikely that the government could make a profit on THOSE shares as an IPO *could* raise $20B but the reports I'm reading say that GM would have to raise $70B in order have 'paid back' the bailout money with equity.

[Guest]

what the image of the eagle is about.....instead of your restating for convenience allegation:

Freedom
# When the fighting colonists heard the bald eagles' cries over their heads, they said, "They are shrieking for freedom." Thus, the bald eagle became a symbol of American freedom, the very basis on which the founding fathers built the United States.

National Symbol
# The bald eagle was chosen as the symbol of the United States of America on June 20, 1782, by the Second Continental Congress because of its strength and majesty, as well as the belief that bald eagles only lived in North America, now known to be true.

Like too many others you prefer to attack the messenger than participate in a discussion. Yes DISCUSSION which includes minority (not race) opinions, opposing opinions, disagreement, conflict, challenges.....you know all the things Obama supporters detest and combat.

We are all entitled and need not the agreement of anyone to stand and be counted. We the people are for the most part not lemmings!

btk

[Guest]

their bias against anything Obama does. Of course, they don't admit that the whole mess was created by the prior administration because that would require an objective, unemotional thought process of which they are incapable.

Believe the spin if you like, but President Bush had a Democrat controlled legislature that pushed and passed laws and he had to negotiate with them to get any small part of what he wanted. He tried to reign in Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the banking crisis and was rebuked, and now subsequently blamed by these very same hypocritical charlatans. Too many Republican's did vote with the Dems though.

Clinton, on the other hand, had the much ballyhooed balanced budget as he had to deal with a Republican controlled legislative who was able to temper his Liberal agenda, and of course, the liberal media attributes that stability in the economy to him and not to the Republican legislature.