Obama - 4th best president in U.S. history
 

I just watched some video from 60 minutes that was edited out of the program. From the lips of Obama, I watched him declare himself as the 4th best president we have ever had. With all the humility he could muster, he said his accomplishments could stand alongside of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Johnson. What a guy!

Vote him OUT!!!!!!

All he's accomplished in these 3 years is to spur and further pit the "have nots" against the "haves", like that doesn't happen fast enough just by human nature being envious while wanting to take the path of least resistance.

This reminds me of the story a guy relates about a narcissist interviewer. The interviewer continued on incesstantly talking about himself to the interviewee and then abruptly stops and says "enough about me let's talk about you. The interviewee leans forward waiting for the first question and the interviewer says" "Well what to you think about me?"

That is Obama in a nut shell

While President Obama's approval rating is not high right now, it is much higher than the approval rating of Congress which stands at around 9%. Pres. Obama has about a 43% approval rating.

Junior Bush had a 22% approval rating when he left office.

Bill Clinton had about a 65% approval rating.

Osama Bin Laden would probably disagree - and so would Al Queada. They were a lot safer when Junior was running around.

???????????????????????? What do your comments have to do with this thread????

What he said was he would put the accomplishments of his administration up against the accomplishments of any president with the exception of Johnson, Roosevelt and Lincoln. Now while I agree we need a change of direction in the white house as much as the next person, I think we do each other a disservice when we twist the words to help in such a partisan way.

Vote him out, but do it honestly. His exact words would have brought sensible folks to the same conclusion, but for those that research and see the twist of words, it looses its negative intent. We can have a conservative in the white house and hold our heads up straight and high at the same time.

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president - with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln - just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history."

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/now/is...st-of-all-time

Anybody know what he was talking about ???

How does "our" and "we"
 

get misconstrued into I, I, and I.....This is a great time for some New Years resolutions.

During a "Sixty Minutes" interview with Steve Kroft:

KROFT: Tell me, what do you consider your major accomplishments? If this is your last speech. What have you accomplished?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, we’re not done yet. I’ve got five more years of stuff to do. But not only saving this country from a great depression. Not only saving the auto industry. But putting in place a system in which we’re gonna start lowering health care costs and you’re never gonna go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick. Making sure that we have reformed the financial system, so we never again have taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the system is more stable and secure. Making sure that we’ve got millions of kids out here who are able to go to college because we’ve expanded student loans and made college more affordable. Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Decimating al Qaeda, including Bin Laden being taken off the field. Restoring America’s respect around the world.

The issue here is not gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do. And we’re gonna keep on at it.


To me, he's referring to furthering his Progressive agenda.

"But putting in place a system in which we’re gonna start lowering health care costs and you’re never gonna go bankrupt because you get sick or somebody in your family gets sick. Making sure that we have reformed the financial system, so we never again have taxpayer-funded bailouts, and the system is more stable and secure. Making sure that we’ve got millions of kids out here who are able to go to college because we’ve expanded student loans and made college more affordable. Ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Decimating al Qaeda, including Bin Laden being taken off the field. Restoring America’s respect around the world."

...and these are bad things?

In the meantime, the Republicans are holding up a payroll tax cut in Congress that will cost WORKERS extra money each week. The Republicans are the YAHOOS who preach tax cuts but are now wanting to tax MORE. No wonder the Congress has a 9% approval rating. I really wonder who the crazies are that actually are e the 9% who approve of COngress.

Buggy One -They're wonderful things..........the rub comes with the big government knows best, European style Marxist redistribution of wealth plan Obama is tenaciously pursuing to pay for them. Stevie Wonder can see the train wreck coming if Obama is re-elected.

You really need to post all the facts before you rant, throw bombs and bash. You selectively omit the fact that the Republicans want the payroll tax cut extended for 12 months not the 2 month plan the Democrats you seem to side with prefer. I know, I know, its a lot easier for you to rant and bash when you're unencumbered by facts

Nope...bad things at all !!!

CBO has already begun the reversal on healthcare "savings"....health care costs are rising and will continue to rise

Nothing has changed in big business except the President continues to collect money from them for campaigning.

And isnt it nice how the President takes all the credit for "Decimating al Qaeda" Those other guys should have at least done something, right ?

If you did any reading at all, you would know that the Republicans are actually for the payroll tax cut BUT oppose a simple two month extension instead of actually continuing it. The "continuation" is a purely political move by the Democrats and serves no purpose..just another example of pandering for votes.

BK is right on the mark with her comments....EVERYTHING he does is a simple continuation of more government and pandering for votes.

A good read in today's Washington Post....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z4

Not all criticism of the President in the article however it ends...

"But lack of reform — not resources — remains the problem with U.S. education and with many other public-sector institutions, from housing to agriculture. The president has taken only modest steps to deal with this problem, which is not surprising given his party’s dependence on public-sector labor unions.

Public-sector unions and other interest groups wrap their causes in the rhetoric of equality. Often, what they’re really protecting are privileges that raise the cost of public services to everyone else — including citizens who earn a lot less than civil servants. Yes, Wall Street’s bonuses are stratospheric. But the New York Times recently reported that Medicaid was paying nine executives $500,000 or more per year to operate nonprofit homes for the mentally disabled."

Great things all. But Obama could find a cure for cancer and he could broker world peace and you know what?......the Repubs would say NO! :cus:

You got that right!

I guess when you lack the intellectual capacity to debate the facts of the positions posted that conflict with your own ideology and dogma......you retreat and resort to the patently absurd. Very Alinskyesque. Have a nice day in The Villages.

Cabo,

I must apologize to you since you obviously are one of the 9% who approve of how Congress is working.

Luv ya too. :cus:

Buggy........outside of hijacking the thread to deflect criticism from the 4th best president ever..........what is your point?

Your sarcastic apology and presumptions of who I approve of or don't approve of seem a bit desperate and sophomoric.

Back on the point of the OP pre-hijack.......where do you believe Obama ranks in the roll call of our Presidents?

First, I have not seen the piece you referenced, but would be willing to bet that obama was being tongue-in-cheek, if he suggested he was the fourth best president in history. Just like that type of humor is often misinterpreted on a message board, it is often misinterpreted in sound bites. Like most attempts at humor that politicians make, it was probably ill-advised.
As to where he ranks, no one knows at this point. His term or terms are not yet complete, and where some of his programs and decisions wind up in the context of history are yet to be determined. Right now, his presidency would not rank highly with most Americans, but then Truman's presidency was deemed a failure by most at the time he left office. I realize that your post was probably meant to elicit jabs at obama, which is fair I suppose, but the truth is that no one really knows at this point how history will judge him.

Aww, C'mon...
 

C'mon, Cabo, wealth IS being re-distributed. Tack whatever name on it that you'd like, but our current tax and regulatory policies have resulted in the rich getting materially richer and the middle class is getting poorer as the result. And the "poor" class is growing at an alarming rate. Did you see the article last week that now over 50% of all Americans have income at or less than the defined "poverty" level?

Any economist will tell you that the vibrant growth of the U.S. economy in the years following WWII resulted from the growth of the middle class, both in numbers as well as in middle class family income. The growing middle class were the ones that spent, with the resultant vibrant economic growth.

What we have now is the wealthiest class controlling a greater and greater proportion of the nation's income and wealth. Because they don't spend as big a proportion of their income as the middle class, all that wealth is sitting on the sidelines waiting until the wealthy see a profitable investment opportunity. For whatever reason all that wealth is frozen, not contributing to economic activity and growth here in the U.S. The soundbite we hear all to often is "why would we tax the job creators?" In fact, a surprising amount of that capital is being invested by the wealthy outside the U.S.--creating jobs outside the U.S., not here. Why have "emerging markets" investments become so popular? Or foreign sector fund investments? Or straight investments in companies outside the U.S.? Why do most competent investment advisors tell their clients to allocate a greater and greater amount of their investments to opportunities outside the U.S.?

I'll admit that I've contributed to that pattern myself. As of this morning, over one-third of my investment portfolio is allocated to investments outside the U.S. Would I like to have a greater allocation to U.S. companies participating in the U.S. economy? Absolutely! But economic growth is so much more vibrant in some countries or regions outside the U.S. that it would make no sense to sacrifice and take the risk of investments in U.S. companies or industries that are stumbling along in a slow-growth state, often sadly uncompetitive with companies providing the same products or services outside the U.S.

You can use all the soundbites and inflammatory terms you'd like, but wealth is being re-distributed because of government policies--from the poor and middle class to the rich. And until our government policies are changed--tax policies, business regulations, and even our investment in education and healthcare--which will put more income in the hands of those who will spend it here in the U.S., our rate of economic growth will be limited, most often to the benefit of foreign countries and companies who present more attractive investment opportunities for capital controlled here than any such opportunity here in the U.S.

Kahuna, alas........I must reconcile myself to the fact that the theme of this thread is destined for perpetual hijacking. Of course you are correct about wealth being redistributed. It started in earnest after WWII when Social Democrats implemented it through state welfare and taxation. The influence of Karl Marx is self evident. Marx believed that socialism will eventually displace capitalism and precede the ultimate wealth distribution as envisioned by him, with some help from Fredrick Engels. He created a new economic system and called it "Communism". That system called specifically for the redistribution of wealth. I'm sure you don't need a refresher or tutorial on Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto and redistribution of wealth.

Semantics can cloud the issue and we can parse the definitions of redistributing wealth or redistributing income. In either case, for Marxism to prevail, a requirement must be the destruction of capitalism. Are you comfortable with that? Brings to mind the often TOTV hashed Cloward-Piven theory that calls for the systematic bankrupting of America by making entailments so burdensome our economy implodes and sets the stage for the "new" system. I challenge you and the liberal but loyal opposition to connect the dots by reading this brief piece on Cloward-Piven followed by googling it til your hearts content.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...tegy_of_e.html

I posted this on TOTV in 2009.

I could get into one of my epic filibusters here, but we have so much to do before Christmas.

Kahuna, we're really not far apart on a point by point basis. I agree with a great deal with your thoughtful post. We differ on what's driving the redistribution. I suspect it's more sinister than you suggest.

Thanks for a thought provoking post. It is refreshing.

By the way......where do you rank Obama in the list of Presidents?

So you just ignore factual posts as CABO and I presented concerning the payroll tax cut and just continue on with the infantile little snide remarks.

Seems that you and DALEMN just make these comments with total disregard for facts and when shown how wrong you are, you just march off as if it never happened.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss our current President seemingly putting himself in a really elite class and in his words in only TWO years, taking full credit for getting al queda on the run and various other things that are just flat not true and that is ok with you folks.

If so, what chance do we have...you will adore this man not matter what and defend whatever he says, no matter what !

President Obama's record beats Junior Bush's record seven ways to Sunday.

Just WHO are the 9% who think that Congress is doing a good job?

Delusional.

At least, on that, we can be in 100% agreement.

You tell me if it was tongue-in-cheek: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE[/ame]

Regarding Obama, Cloward-Piven Strategy, Karl Marx and redistribution of wealth.....the silence from the left is deafening. Does the silence mean the libs know it and accept it? Perhaps reading or debating anything that is not consistent with the liberal mindset of the loyal opposition is not part of their programming. The snipers post hit and run Democrat talking points and call it a discussion. Where is the intellectual defense from the left on the above invitation to participate in THAT dialog? Where are the Obama cheerleaders? Maybe you would prefer the discussion to have it's own thread?

Having fun in The Villages.....have a great day whatever you do.

Nietzche, "God is Dead;" "Nietzsche is Dead," God.

what the heck is the big deal? So he thinks in 2 areas his presidency is as good as most past Presidents for the first 2 years. So what!

cabo,I am confused. I do know that Karl Marx,Cloward-Piven and redistribution of wealth are terms used by some on this sight. Are you claiming that Obama and his economic policies is somehow using all 3 of these to undermine the USA?

You certainly do not believe he was just thinking and quoting on the run? It was, as they all are, rehearsed/practiced/prepared....hence, as all such presentations are, shallow at best because it is just word rehearsal being executed.

btk

The first thing you must do to relieve your confusion is to actually read the thread and the related posts you are commenting on. The rest will be self evident to you. I look forward to reading your case in defense of Obama's economic policies and how they could not possibly be influenced by the points cited and referenced. There is a case to the contrary to be made, but, I haven't heard it from the loyal oppostion on this board. All I hear in response are one line partisan talking points that do not enrich the dialogue.

My Cliff's Notes abridged response would be:

Marx - redistribution of wealth advocate, class warfare advocate

Cloward-Piven - collapse the economy by overloading entitlements to pave the way for destroying capitalism and introducing new Marxist inspired system

Presumptuously, if I were advising you on how to debate the topic..... I never suggested it was not debatable or open to different points of view..... I would suggest you did some cursory research on Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto and Cloward-Piven for starters. Looking forward to a healthy, spirited engagement......possibly.

I am sorry that you are confused so easily. I did read the thread,looked up Cloward-Piven and it became evident to me that your interpretation of their theory and my interpretation are very different. It begins when you call them radicals,I see them as sociologists and activists. The term radical has a negative connotation to it so it makes perfect sense that you would look at their theory in that way. I must admit that my judgement is somewhat clouded by the fact that the great Glenn Beck is all over this conspiracy theory and I have trouble believing anything he espouses.

Congratulations, you've taken the first baby step to an actual dialog by disagreeing with the word "radical". Unfortunately, you have by design or omission, failed to respond directly to any of the salient points regarding the Cloward-Piven Theory itself, you know, the part that requires the bankrupting of America by expanding entitlements so that a Marxist type economic system can replace capitalism. Perhaps you can put aside your attempt to duck an actual point by point debate and garner the intestinal fortitude to go beyond your Beck bias and do some actual research on Cloward-Piven, Karl Marx, redistribution of wealth. I am neither a fan of or a viewer of Glen Beck. None of my references included him.

A speculative but legitimate question about the Cloward-Piven Strategy is whether it is the boiler plate for Obama and the left's economic objective for the future. Perhaps you will be pleased to know that Frances Fox Piven is still alive and well advocating the "upheaval of government" and an "uprising like Greece" with the OWA group. God bless her radical soul oops.....make that socialist soul. Wait a minute, she preaches the overthrow of government through engineered crisis.......you're right........I say tomato......you say tamato.

Consider yourself lucky to be enjoying all that great weather in The Villages. I am in cold, damp New Jersey in between family gatherings and stone cold bored with way too much time on my hands. Can't wait to get back after Christmas. Thanks for the response.

again I see them differently than you do. I see them as anti-poverty and voting rights activists. Their ultimate objective was to wipe out poverty. It obviously did not work as seen by the record number of Americans under the poverty line.

a few other observations..they did espouse a guarenteed national income something that Nixon talked about in 1969 and in fact was voted down by the Democratic majority through 1972.
Also in many ways Cand P were late. The civil rights and welfare rights movements had already begun.
To me the central theme of many right wing myths are to attribute nearly every past,present, and future crisis to C and P and to link them to Obamas political past and agenda.
Finally,why is Cand P so popular with Tea Party and the right? Because the C and P strategy is so big it allows the right to engage anyone or all the pet issues that anger people. Healthcare reform,C and P,cap and trade,C and P and on and on. Its a brilliant strategy and when tied to Obama should show some of you why no matter what happens it is Obamas fault.
And a final thought. Language is a very powerful weapon. Words you choose and the way we present them say volumes about us. Some of us use words to show how smart we are,some to insult, and others use words to demeen other posters. Some posters use all the above in their posts. Really too bad.

...and where do they get the language to demean others? They get it straigh from Fox Noise. I looked at a few minutes of Fox Noise when the morning cast members were talking to Mittens and Michelle the Mouth.

I heard them use lots of the same words that the uber-conservatives on this forum use such as "bomb-throwing", "flaming", and "haters". These must be in the Fox Noise handbook of words to try and get under the skin of thinking Americans who are not sock puppets of Fox Noise.

" Fox Noise."

"Mittens"

"Michelle the Mouth."


The language of "sanity" ???? A "thinking american" ????

Where in The Villages do they sell the "Fox Noise Handbook of Phrases to Irritate Thinking Americans"?

Fox News Most Viewed in nation by wide margin
 

Buggy - Fox News noise blows the doors off all others. Most watched in the nation by incredibly wide margins. No other cable network even close. Fox dominates the competition....and they lead in every age demographic. Go figure. :shrug:

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...0-2011/114410/