Did you - and would you again ?

[Mensch1351]

Yes and yes. And it amazes me that people can talk about Obama as if he hasn't done anything. Yeah, right. How many presidents can you name who accomplished as much in their first two years in office? It's a very, very short list.

And shame on the Democrats for not comprising a comprehensive list of talking points pointing this out to the average American voter!! Just Google "What the hell has Obama Done" and check out the 8 pages of accomplishments (and you've got to get the right website because there's a lot of "Faux" websites with that name dissing him!)

 

[Mensch1351]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mensch1351 [URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
For all the blabberjab about Constitutional freedoms I hear from the Republicans and the evil government staying out of individual's personal lives -- it seems a bit of double speak to me that they would have the GOVERNMENT mandate 1) a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body

Mn Twins1972 "Except it would have to be her body. When a person is conceived a unique genetic code is established which is different than the mother's or the father's. Thus the body being aborted isn't her's, but her baby's"

------------- ah yes..........a whole new individual formed because you were raped getting off a bus!! Yep -- definitely carry THAT child to full term listening to the heartbeat and being made to feel a "double" victim, not ONLY of the rape, but then murdering that little helpless life inside of you.

Living proof that NO man should be allowed to speak about this issue until THEY have been raped and mandated to carry that child around for 9 months, give birth and then RAISE that child or give it up for adoption!

 

[atlclgurl]

Yes and yes. And it amazes me that people can talk about Obama as if he hasn't done anything. Yeah, right. How many presidents can you name who accomplished as much in their first two years in office? It's a very, very short list.

Economy, economy, economy.

Obama has done jack about the economy and that list of "accomplishments" is just a litany of typical governmental shit. The ONLY "major" piece of legislation he has managed to jam through is the idiotic "health care" plan that nobody wanted and has been declared unconstitutional. Frankly, he shot his political wad on that and has flaccid ever since.

Here is a unbiased examination of what campaign promises he's kept and broken from Politifacts : PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Obama has done jack about the economy and that list of "accomplishments" is just a litany of typical governmental shit. The ONLY "major" piece of legislation he has managed to jam through is the idiotic "health care" plan that nobody wanted and has been declared unconstitutional. Frankly, he shot his political wad on that and has flaccid ever since.

Correction... he's tried to do something about the economy, but due to a segment of opposition hellbent on obstructing and trying to make him a one term president as well as his obsessive need to compromise, many things that could have benefitted our country during this time of need fell short. As for his accomplishments being "tiny", beyond personal expectations which may have their own lofty benchmarks there is no logical way anyone can say that he hasn't done much while in office.

Here is a unbiased examination of what campaign promises he's kept and broken from Politifacts : PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises

And if you look at the list, he's kept more than broken and many others are still in progress. Alas, the economy is still struggling so it doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

 

[D_MastaBaiter]

Pffffff . . . a technicality, and you know it. The point is, you tell someone they can't MARRY the person they love, you're intervening in their love life to an overweening and unacceptable degree.

And where do you draw the line? Polygamy? Someone over 18 marrying someone 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? or say someone who's 30 marrying someone who's 16,15,14,13,12? Bestiality - someone marrying their pet? Because according to your argument to intervene in someone's love life is doing so in an unacceptable degree.

 

[D_MastaBaiter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mensch1351 [URL]http://www.lpsg.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
For all the blabberjab about Constitutional freedoms I hear from the Republicans and the evil government staying out of individual's personal lives -- it seems a bit of double speak to me that they would have the GOVERNMENT mandate 1) a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body

Mn Twins1972 "Except it would have to be her body. When a person is conceived a unique genetic code is established which is different than the mother's or the father's. Thus the body being aborted isn't her's, but her baby's"

------------- ah yes..........a whole new individual formed because you were raped getting off a bus!! Yep -- definitely carry THAT child to full term listening to the heartbeat and being made to feel a "double" victim, not ONLY of the rape, but then murdering that little helpless life inside of you.

There are no easy answers when it comes to rape and abortion. A baby shouldn't have to be killed because of the father's sin. The baby is a unique individual and should be protected. I'm not out to make women feel bad about an abortion they had because they were raped, but don't you think if a woman feels bad about a past abortion that, that is saying something. I've heard women who've had an abortion because they were raped say they regretted their abortion, that they just sunk into a deeper depression afterwards. I've also heard women who were raped say carrying the child to full term was a healing experience. One woman said things changed in her mind when she realized that the baby was her's and it shared her DNA.

Living proof that NO man should be allowed to speak about this issue until THEY have been raped and mandated to carry that child around for 9 months, give birth and then RAISE that child or give it up for adoption!

Well, last time I checked, I'm human and I'm seeking to save human lives, I think that qualifies me to have a say.

 

[D_MastaBaiter]

Correction... he's tried to do something about the economy, but due to a segment of opposition hellbent on obstructing and trying to make him a one term president as well as his obsessive need to compromise, many things that could have benefitted our country during this time of need fell short.

Except for the time at the beginning of his presidency where he had a huge majority and passed bills he wanted passed. He did what he wanted to do, but the only problem is that, it didn't work. He thought it would and it didn't. So now he's going back to the same old playbook, "Blame Bush and the Republicans".

As for his accomplishments being "tiny", beyond personal expectations which may have their own lofty benchmarks there is no logical way anyone can say that he hasn't done much while in office.

No disagreements there. No one can say he hasn't done much while in office. In fact, he's done a lot to dig us deeper into debt. We went from a hand shovel to a backhoe.

 

[atlclgurl]

Correction... he's tried to do something about the economy, but due to a segment of opposition hellbent on obstructing and trying to make him a one term president as well as his obsessive need to compromise, many things that could have benefitted our country during this time of need fell short. As for his accomplishments being "tiny", beyond personal expectations which may have their own lofty benchmarks there is no logical way anyone can say that he hasn't done much while in office.

You ignore the very real 2 YEARS he had in which he had control of the legislative and executive branches and got exactly ZERO done about the economy. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Here is an article from NPR about this exact issue. Weekly Standard: It's Obama's Economy : NPR

Here's a in depth and very well balanced look at his first two years from the Brookings Institution President Barack Obama

And if you look at the list, he's kept more than broken and many others are still in progress. Alas, the economy is still struggling so it doesn't seem to matter to anyone.

I assume you are counting his "compromises" as "keeping his promises".

In progress doesn't count for shit. If it's law it counts, if not, its just another circle jerk on the Hill.

As for his total "score", if you go down the line and categorize his "kept" promises, then you will see that quite a few, if not most of them, are off-shoots of the health care boondoggle. No, I did not categorize them, I just skimmed through the first three or four pages. I got bored after that, LOL.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You ignore the very real 2 YEARS he had in which he had control of the legislative and executive branches and got exactly ZERO done about the economy. Nothing. Nothing at all.

No I didn't. Despite Democrats having "control", the minority party in the Senate could use the filibuster to delay or even prevent legislation from passing. Did you ignore the record number of filibusters during the first two years of Obama's presidency? Everyone assumes that once a political party has a majority that they'll get their way with all politicians blindly voting down party lines, so if a party has 53 seats in the Senate you can count on those votes every single time. That is clearly not the case.

Although I appreciate the fact you took time to provide links, I've already looked at countless pages that tried to give an in-depth look at the first few years of Obama's presidency and determining on the slant they all say the same thing.

If it's the "liberal media", it tries to express that he has done a lot of major things (despite them not being as thorough or effective as one imagined) regardless of the glaring problems with Congress having a filibuster happy minority during the first two years to a defunct, parTEA infested House currently. Progressives say he's not hard enough and always threaten to abandon him come election time because he isn't the "Nega-Bush" they expected him to be.

If it's the one major source of "conservative media" it's the usual "Obama is the worst president in history" garbage, disingenuously omitting that much of the major legislative pieces that were brought to the table were being voted down by their ideological peers out of principle since they're just trying to prevent a Democrat from getting a second term instead of governing. They also don't comment on how many of their own kind continually adopt hypocritical stances and continually badger the President to "lead", just so he can come up with ideas to be against them on default as they continually pander to their loyal base of voters and the disgruntled independents... also ignoring the fact that all bills start at the House & Senate level and it's up to them to actually do their job and create bills for Obama to sign. But we can't blame Boehner as Speaker of the House (where bills usually are written and started) for not bringing to vote a single jobs bill since he took the role, can we? It's always easier to blame the figurehead. Many Democrats did that with Bush towards the end of his presidency, and many Republicans feel compelled to do the same thing out of revenge even though the reasonings are completely different.

I assume you are counting his "compromises" as "keeping his promises".

Actually, in many instances I count that as being a rational thinking adult among the lunatic fringes. Despite the bickering between the two ideological sides that will never see eye to eye, Obama is the President for everyone even if they refuse to accept it. I will say that sometimes even I wish he would stop holding an olive branch and occasionally hand over a thorny vine. But I'd rather have a president who's willing to work with everyone and not just the people who voted for him. It's precisely that kind of mentality that has lead our Congress to be as scrambled as it is now.

In progress doesn't count for shit.

Actually, that means the current administration is working on it which goes completely against the disingenuous notion that he's not doing anything. This also means we should have patience especially when we consider how broken Congress is at this moment. But I'm not holding my breath here. Everyone seems to want everything yesterday and are quick to forget or ignore the specifics to just lash out at somebody out of frustration. It's a typical thing in politics.

As for his total "score", if you go down the line and categorize his "kept" promises, then you will see that quite a few, if not most of them, are off-shoots of the health care boondoggle.

Well, he did campaign heavily on Health Care. :tongue:
And in many ways, trying to alleviate some of the financial burden on citizens when it comes to health care services is necessary if we're going to fix the economy. It isn't just about cutting spending and raising tax revenues as some of our parTEA people would like to unknowingly (or disingenuously) imply. It's also about bringing the average citizen's cost of living to a more manageable level.

No, I did not categorize them, I just skimmed through the first three or four pages. I got bored after that, LOL.

When it comes to political issues I tend not to get bored even when it deals with a politician I can't stand, especially if I have to try and defend what I have to say about them. But that's just me.

 

[Klingsor]

And where do you draw the line? Polygamy? Someone over 18 marrying someone 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? or say someone who's 30 marrying someone who's 16,15,14,13,12? Bestiality - someone marrying their pet? Because according to your argument to intervene in someone's love life is doing so in an unacceptable degree.

Oh Jesus . . . are you REALLY going there? Again??? How many times do we have to hear this CRAP?

If you TRULY can't see the difference between two consenting, rational adults marrying each other . . . and someone marrying a CHILD, or an ANIMAL . . . then you have issues to worry about far greater than same-sex marriage.

But of course, you DO see the difference, don't you? It's just so much easier to pretend you don't so you can trot out, once again, that tired, asinine argument.

Sheeesh!

 

[Klingsor]

Oh, and before anyone jumps on me about calling the big O a " black messiah", here's a detailed examination of why some behaved as if he was indeed the Messiah.

Um . . . it's not the "messiah" part that was objectionable.

 

[atlclgurl]

Actually, the links I provided were from NPR and a non-partisan think tank.
So, while I appreciate your "explanation" of media spin, it wasn't relevant.

Please don't put words in my mouth (or at my fingertips), I never said I couldn't "stand" Obama. My complaints with him are very simple... he wasn't equipped to be the President when he got elected, and he has done a pitiful job when it comes to the economy.

IF (and that is a HUGE HUGE "IF") he can get the economy off life support, hell, even if he can get it to look like it can get off life support, I'd consider voting for him. Unfortunately, I don't think either he or the economy are getting back on their feet again soon.

I stand by my assertion (because it is fact)... "in progress" is just "not complete" in other words and in my world view, if it ain't done, it ain't done. Perhaps you're one of those who like to give everyone a medal for just showing up, I prefer concrete results, but hey, that's just me.

As for your not so sly innuendo that I may sympathize with the radical right wing idiots, I do enjoy TEA, but I get mine at McDonald's... not the voting booth.

 

[atlclgurl]

Um . . . it's not the "messiah" part that was objectionable.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Actually, the links I provided were from NPR and a non-partisan think tank.
So, while I appreciate your "explanation" of media spin, it wasn't relevant.

The source that an article appears on doesn't always dictate the slant, dear.
Although being non-partisan, NPR has several writers that are decisively liberal and conservative. Their idea of being "non-partisan" is not making sure every article written looks at issues straight down the middle... it's to provide a stage where people, regardless of their political belief, are free to speak from their own point of view. Truth be told, in politics there are very few articles that truly view things down the middle without being judgmental or slanted. The atmosphere of politics (compounded by a reader's desire to feel vindicated for their beliefs and an organization's need to have high ratings) literally forces the writer to assume a stance and issue a verdict on any issue. Not even NPR or a "think tank" are exonerated... and those articles you sourced prove the points I just made.

Please don't put words in my mouth (or at my fingertips), I never said I couldn't "stand" Obama. My complaints with him are very simple... he wasn't equipped to be the President when he got elected, and he has done a pitiful job when it comes to the economy.

And I never tried to put anything in your mouth, sweetie.
If anything, my response tried to be as objective as possible when dealing with the facts, while still offering my "left leaning" opinion for closing commentary. I never once accused you of saying anything.

IF (and that is a HUGE HUGE "IF") he can get the economy off life support, hell, even if he can get it to look like it can get off life support, I'd consider voting for him. Unfortunately, I don't think either he or the economy are getting back on their feet again soon.

I don't thinks it's going to get that much better either, because the things that are necessary right now are going to be blocked out of principle by several ideological nutcases in Congress.

I stand by my assertion (because it is fact)... "in progress" is just "not complete" in other words and in my world view, if it ain't done, it ain't done.

Oh, you so view certain political issues in binary then?
Ones and zeroes... no points in between. Yes or no. Boolean. Gotcha.

Perhaps you're one of those who like to give everyone a medal for just showing up, I prefer concrete results, but hey, that's just me.

And here you are putting words in my mouth. I would usually divert into my patented sarcastic scribe here, but seeing that I don't have any real grievances with you I'll refrain. However, I will make a suggestion... implications of my ability to judge character by someone who adamantly looks at issues from an binary perspective are exceedingly absurd. My perception of what is concrete takes into consideration all positions, regardless if it's completed, in progress or not. To be more informed and more willing to understand the details allows me to create a more accurate response. I try to demonstrate that when I engage in an honest discussion, despite what some naysayers would tend to believe. In other words... when you're addressing me, do keep in mind that you are discussing these issues with an adult who is well versed with what has transpired politically.

As for your not so sly innuendo that I may sympathize with the radical right wing idiots, I do enjoy TEA, but I get mine at McDonald's... not the voting booth.

You assume wrong, because I can tell based on your responses that I'm not talking to a hardcore right winger nor would I try to label you as a "sympathizer" just because some of your beliefs on certain issues do appear to lean right. Set your phasers off of stun, please. And although there are a handful of people on this board who either drink the kool-aid or guzzle the tea, I pride myself on being a vodka connoisseur... and neither one of those beverages cut that well.

So what do you say... do we continue this debate over some glasses of Grey Goose, or shall we leave it here for now? :wink:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Except for the time at the beginning of his presidency where he had a huge majority and passed bills he wanted passed.

Huge majorities mean nothing if the minority party in the Senate was determined to filibuster everything out of principle. It usually takes 51 votes to pass a law in the Senate, or a simple majority. Democrats did have this and continue to do so in the Senate despite losing seats in 2010. However, because some Republicans were hell bent to force ever law to pass with a Super Majority (which rarely ever happens), many bills died in the Senate and never made it to the President's desk for signing.

He did what he wanted to do, but the only problem is that, it didn't work. He thought it would and it didn't. So now he's going back to the same old playbook, "Blame Bush and the Republicans".

And he has every right to blame the handful of Republicans who votes had nothing to do with policy, but nothing more than political posturing to pander to their base and to strategically stall Congress so nothing gets done.

No disagreements there. No one can say he hasn't done much while in office. In fact, he's done a lot to dig us deeper into debt. We went from a hand shovel to a backhoe.

Pure disingenuousness. As I stated (now for the fourth time), the biggest contributors to the debt over the last few decades have been under Republican Presidential rule. More than $9 Trillion of the $14.3 Trillion we now face were under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II... most of this coming from the previous administration through two wars and tax cuts that were never paid for. This is all verifiable through data recently posted by the U.S. Treasury.

Obama's contribution to the debt at this point is valued to be $2.4 Trillion. So if you want to adhere to the simplified explanation to suggest that he "increased the debt" and pass judgement feel free to do so. However, much of the debt Obama has amassed was through the stimulus which many economic experts agree wasn't large enough. On that fact alone, Obama should have spent more than what he did. Alas, with some members all brainwashed into believing the "excessive spending" hype and other still determined to deny a Democratic president a second term, I'm sure if he did we'd still be having this debate and you'd be still trying to convince me that your statement (void of details and factual accounts of what just transpired over the last few years) is the word of the land.

Details, everyone... DETAILS. If you ain't got 'em, then don't waste my time. I'm not a kool-aid or a tea drinker. I prefer vodka, and my tastes are very finicky.

 

[B_enzia35]

Huh so over the past few decades, "Rethuglicans" were responsible for $9 trillion out of $14 trillion of the debt. Heck, GWB was responsible for almost half of that, $4 trillion, in his 2 terms of office. I'm not saying these are good guys. But Obama, in 3 years, is coming close to beating GWB's increase of the deficit, which was accrued over 8 years in office.

Hand shovel to backhoe indeed.

 

[Industrialsize]

I voted for President Obama in '08 and plan to vote for him again. I just put the Obama 2012 bumper sticker on the car and have already started donating to his campaign. I don't want a Republican anywhere near the White House or Supreme Court appointments.

 

[B_enzia35]

I'm not a fan of Obama's at all, but it's good to see someone doing their part in the democratic process, regardless of how broken it is.

 

[spoon]

not sure yet. have to watch and wait. i want ralph nader to send out his nader's raiders.

 

[lurker37160]

Is it too late for Hillary to go after the nomination?