login
How dumb does he think we are? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-01-26 2:03 PM in reply to: #2635532 |
Champion  5522   Frisco, TX |  Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are?zed707 - 2010-01-26 1:13 PM ejshowers - 2010-01-26 12:19 PM Pector 55 - well said! Yes, well said. What amuses me is that most of the Obama-haters were not wailing when Bush Jr. was spending like a drunken sailor. This one was. I have consistently said that I blame Bush - not for the war, but for not rolling back spending and programs. Instead he created more... I blame him for that.... |
| 2010-01-26 2:17 PM in reply to: #2635591 |
Master 1584  Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? zed707 - 2010-01-26 2:34 PM TriRSquared - 2010-01-26 1:28 PM zed707 - 2010-01-26 2:13 PM ejshowers - 2010-01-26 12:19 PM Pector 55 - well said! Yes, well said. What amuses me is that most of the Obama-haters were not wailing when Bush Jr. was spending like a drunken sailor. Everyone always falls back to this argument (which is weak). I never saw any of the "left leaning" on this board complain about it either. So what does this tell you? Two wrongs do not make a right. I did not like the spending either. However what is done is done. Obama had a chance to change that. He chose "business as usual". I totally disagree that it's a weak argument. In fact, I believe it's a very strong argument that some people have very strong party affiliations and tend to overlook problems with their party. Someone who ignored Bush's spending but bitterly complains about Obama's would be such a person. x2. A very quick google search estimates that Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the US $953 BILLION dollars. I realize that it can be construed as a different issue, but I see ZERO benefit to the Iraq war. IMO, until the current administration invades a country for a made up reason and spends a Trillion dollars on it, it will be more successful than the one before it. I don't necessarily agree with all of the bailouts that have been given out (which Obama somehow miraculously started in the fall of '08, months before actually becoming president), but realize that something has to be done to kick start the economy (which Obama seems to have ruined months before actually becoming president). This whole notion of "it's been a year" is preposterous to me. By the same logic, 9/11 would be entirely Bush's fault, since he had been president for over a year. But I seem to remember many fingers being pointed at Clinton for that one... |
 2010-01-26 2:20 PM in reply to: #2635118 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-01-26 2:22 PM in reply to: #2635324 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Pector55 - 2010-01-26 11:40 AM There is something called "spin." Basically, China cannot continue to buy U.S. bonds at the same rate so unless the U.S. fires up the printing presses, congress and the president will be forced to slow down on the spending. However, being politicians, they will spin it that they WANT to control spending, not that they are being forced to by the fact that other countries simply cannot and will not continue to dump money into bonds back by a falling dollar. Seems the solution is if you want to control spending, never elect a Democrat to congress. Remember, it is Congress that appropriates funds, not the President. Edited by Jackemy 2010-01-26 2:28 PM |
| 2010-01-26 2:27 PM in reply to: #2635695 |
| Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:22 PM Pector55 - 2010-01-26 11:40 AM There is something called "spin." Basically, China cannot continue to buy U.S. bonds at the same rate so unless the U.S. fires up the printing presses, congress and the president will be forced to slow down on the spending. However, being politicians, they will spin it that they WANT to control spending, not that they are being forced to by the fact that other countries simply cannot and will not continue to dump money into bonds back by a falling dollar. Seems the moral of the story is if you want to control spending, never elect a Democrat to congress. Remember, it is Congress that appropriates funds, not the President. Or a republican as president |
| 2010-01-26 2:28 PM in reply to: #2635691 |
Extreme Veteran 446 Barrington, IL | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? AcesFull - 2010-01-26 2:20 PM I think The Onion nailed it a year ago, with their headline, which read something like, "World's Worst Job Given to Black Man." Let's be realistic. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, two wars that were sucking the country's resources, shocking unemployment, failing banks, and the list goes on. No matter who is brought in to coach the Lions next year, I don't expect them to go to the Super Bowl, or even have a winning season. Heck, if they win four games and only mostly suck, that would be a great improvement. I think its premature to call this Presidency a failure. The biggest failure of the Dems in the past year is that they did not use their overwhelming majority to simply run roughshod over the GOP and move forward with sweeping legislation to dramatically overhaul the economy and healthcare. Now they will suffer the consequences of their lack of action by getting trounced in 2010. Bush did a much better job at ramming his agenda down the country's throat, and I've been sorely disappointed in the Dems inability to do the same, with a far larger majority.
The Dems would have ruined the economy - and they people didn't want what they were selling. It is interesting to me when they Republicans do what they think is best people call them obstructionists but dems are doing what is best for the country. Obama got his failed stimulus bill and then let the "leadership" was told by Obama to craft a healthcare bill. He was afraid to put what he wanted in place - well we see how well that worked out. BTW - the Jimmy Carter recession was worse than this one - it is a media line that this was worse since the Great Depression. If it really was the worst why did Obama promise that unemployment wouldn't go over 8% with his stimulus bill passing/ |
| 2010-01-26 2:29 PM in reply to: #2635591 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? zed707 - 2010-01-26 2:34 PM TriRSquared - 2010-01-26 1:28 PM zed707 - 2010-01-26 2:13 PM ejshowers - 2010-01-26 12:19 PM Pector 55 - well said! Yes, well said. What amuses me is that most of the Obama-haters were not wailing when Bush Jr. was spending like a drunken sailor. Everyone always falls back to this argument (which is weak). I never saw any of the "left leaning" on this board complain about it either. So what does this tell you? Two wrongs do not make a right. I did not like the spending either. However what is done is done. Obama had a chance to change that. He chose "business as usual". I totally disagree that it's a weak argument. In fact, I believe it's a very strong argument that some people have very strong party affiliations and tend to overlook problems with their party. Someone who ignored Bush's spending but bitterly complains about Obama's would be such a person. Just becuase someone does not verbalize their displeasure does not mean they are not displeased. I think it says something that people are being more verbal with their displease of Obama than they were with Bush. Does this mean that the left disliked Bush less than the right dislikes Obama? WHo knows. But it's and interesting phenomenon. |
| 2010-01-26 2:33 PM in reply to: #2635691 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? AcesFull - 2010-01-26 3:20 PM The biggest failure of the Dems in the past year is that they did not use their overwhelming majority to simply run roughshod over the GOP and move forward with sweeping legislation to dramatically overhaul the economy and healthcare. Now they will suffer the consequences of their lack of action by getting trounced in 2010. Bush did a much better job at ramming his agenda down the country's throat, and I've been sorely disappointed in the Dems inability to do the same, with a far larger majority. To me this speaks volumes. And they say the Republican party is in disarray. |
| 2010-01-26 2:35 PM in reply to: #2635707 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? JoshR - 2010-01-26 2:27 PM Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:22 PM Pector55 - 2010-01-26 11:40 AM There is something called "spin." Basically, China cannot continue to buy U.S. bonds at the same rate so unless the U.S. fires up the printing presses, congress and the president will be forced to slow down on the spending. However, being politicians, they will spin it that they WANT to control spending, not that they are being forced to by the fact that other countries simply cannot and will not continue to dump money into bonds back by a falling dollar. Seems the moral of the story is if you want to control spending, never elect a Democrat to congress. Remember, it is Congress that appropriates funds, not the President. Or a republican as president Not necessarily as a President can propose all the cuts he/she wants but it has to get through congress first. For example Bush was forced to break his "no new tax pledge" to sell out to George Mitchell (a Dem) to get the budget passed. Reagan was unable to cut all the spending he wanted to because he worked under a Democratic Congress. Bush II was a fiscal liberal and could spend like a Democrat. Heck I have no clue why he was a Republican when it came to fiscal management. Edited by Jackemy 2010-01-26 2:36 PM |
| 2010-01-26 2:38 PM in reply to: #2635727 |
| Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:35 PM JoshR - 2010-01-26 2:27 PM Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:22 PM Pector55 - 2010-01-26 11:40 AM There is something called "spin." Basically, China cannot continue to buy U.S. bonds at the same rate so unless the U.S. fires up the printing presses, congress and the president will be forced to slow down on the spending. However, being politicians, they will spin it that they WANT to control spending, not that they are being forced to by the fact that other countries simply cannot and will not continue to dump money into bonds back by a falling dollar. Seems the moral of the story is if you want to control spending, never elect a Democrat to congress. Remember, it is Congress that appropriates funds, not the President. Or a republican as president Not necessarily as a President can propose all the cuts he/she wants but it has to get through congress first. For example Bush was forced to break his "no new tax pledge" to sell out to George Mitchell (a Dem) to get the budget. Reagan was unable to cut all the spending he wanted to because he worked under a Democratic Congress. Bush II was a fiscal liberal and could spend like a Democrat. Heck I have no clue why he was a Republican when it came to fiscal management. I'm just using the same data set you did to come to my conclusion. It's is also a falsehood to say that Republicans are fiscally conservative. Look at the data from the last 30 years and it is obvious that neither Democrats nor Republicans are fiscally conservative. Just because it's a party line doesn't make it true. |
| 2010-01-26 2:52 PM in reply to: #2635725 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by AcesFull 2010-01-26 2:56 PM |
| 2010-01-26 2:57 PM in reply to: #2635730 |
| Member 1699 | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? JoshR - 2010-01-26 2:38 PM Unfortunately, I agree with you. It's as if the Republicans got their chance and decided to take over as the Party of Tax and Spend. The Democrats were so jealous that they became the Party of Tax More and Spend More. The Republicans might be called fiscally conservative in a relative sense, but I said that Bush's biggest failure was the domestic budget. He had his party in Congress and could not control them. They lost their moral authority on fiscal responsibility under his leadership. IMO, Obama and his Congress lost any moral fiscal authority when their so-called stimulus bills contained so much money for pet Democratic programs that had little or nothing to do with stimulating the economy. BTW, I am amazed that Bill Clinton still gets credit for balancing the budget. The Republicans had to shut down the government in order to get fiscally responsible spending bills passed, and were pilloried in the press. Still, I think it was more to block Clinton than to do something themselves. Gridlock was more responsible than any party policy. |
| 2010-01-26 2:58 PM in reply to: #2635591 |
| Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? zed707 - 2010-01-26 1:34 PM TriRSquared - 2010-01-26 1:28 PM zed707 - 2010-01-26 2:13 PM ejshowers - 2010-01-26 12:19 PM Pector 55 - well said! Yes, well said. What amuses me is that most of the Obama-haters were not wailing when Bush Jr. was spending like a drunken sailor. Everyone always falls back to this argument (which is weak). I never saw any of the "left leaning" on this board complain about it either. So what does this tell you? Two wrongs do not make a right. I did not like the spending either. However what is done is done. Obama had a chance to change that. He chose "business as usual". I totally disagree that it's a weak argument. In fact, I believe it's a very strong argument that some people have very strong party affiliations and tend to overlook problems with their party. Someone who ignored Bush's spending but bitterly complains about Obama's would be such a person. Pot >>>>>> Kettle |
| 2010-01-26 3:00 PM in reply to: #2635118 |
| Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? I thought there'd be a multiple choice poll on this one. |
| 2010-01-26 3:07 PM in reply to: #2635691 |
| Master 2701 Salisbury, North Carolina | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? AcesFull - 2010-01-26 3:20 PM I think The Onion nailed it a year ago, with their headline, which read something like, "World's Worst Job Given to Black Man." Let's be realistic. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, two wars that were sucking the country's resources, shocking unemployment, failing banks, and the list goes on. No matter who is brought in to coach the Lions next year, I don't expect them to go to the Super Bowl, or even have a winning season. Heck, if they win four games and only mostly suck, that would be a great improvement. I think its premature to call this Presidency a failure. The biggest failure of the Dems in the past year is that they did not use their overwhelming majority to simply run roughshod over the GOP and move forward with sweeping legislation to dramatically overhaul the economy and healthcare. Now they will suffer the consequences of their lack of action by getting trounced in 2010. Bush did a much better job at ramming his agenda down the country's throat, and I've been sorely disappointed in the Dems inability to do the same, with a far larger majority.
"Upon occasion, the straight-faced manner in which The Onion reports non-existent happenings has resulted in outside parties mistakenly citing Onion stories as real news."  Being realistic, he inherited a mess, no question. The problem is he's giving the perception he's not up to fixing it. Edited by tri42 2010-01-26 3:10 PM |
| 2010-01-26 3:07 PM in reply to: #2635625 |
| Pro 3932 Irvine, California | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? cardenas1 - 2010-01-26 11:47 AM Fact is independent voters are upset because they are not gettign the CHANGE they heard about for over a year on the campaign trail. It is more of the same. Obama will continue to be bashed by the right and loved by the hard left. It's those in the middle he is losing touch with. When he won the elction with just over 50% of the votes, he did not have the great support everyone is saying has gone away. He is simply losing 15-25% of those who did vote for him in the first place. Tonights speech will be a great speach I am sure. But after so many speeches and little action to back up, it will be another disapointment. I only hope that some of the actions he discusses to get us on the right track come to fruition. As much as I admit not being a fan of his, this is a mess we will all have to clean up regardless so prefer to see that start now vs. 2012 after 2 more years of damage. 2 cents. This is simply not true. If anything, Obama has been extremely centrist so far in everything he's done. I voted for him, and would be considered by many to be "hard left" on many (but not all) issues, and I'm very disappointed in him so far. He's not done anything he promised he would do. Many on the right scream and holler that he's a socialist/Marxist/communist/Muslim/America-hater, but nothing could be further from the truth. If you take a cold, hard look at what he's done, he's been extremely centrist. Health-care reform? He campaigned on a public option, no mandates, and tight regulation of private insurance. What does it look like now? A mandate for everyone to buy crappy private insurance, no public option, very little regulation. He campaigned on being transparent, but we've found out that much of the healthcare bill was the result of him making private, secret deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. He's bailed out Wall Street, and hasn't done anything to rein in the kind of crazy financial behavior that got us to the precipice in the first place. He's surrounded himself with Washington insiders and folks with questionable ties to Wall Street. The list goes on and on. Perhaps he made a calculation that all of this was necessary, that it would be the only way for him to get anything done. But it makes him look unprincipled and spineless. I'm still willing to see if he can turn it around, but so far, no, he hasn't brought about any of the change I voted for him to bring about. |
| 2010-01-26 3:08 PM in reply to: #2635761 |
| Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? AcesFull - 2010-01-26 3:52 PM TriRSquared - 2010-01-26 2:33 PM AcesFull - 2010-01-26 3:20 PM The biggest failure of the Dems in the past year is that they did not use their overwhelming majority to simply run roughshod over the GOP and move forward with sweeping legislation to dramatically overhaul the economy and healthcare. Now they will suffer the consequences of their lack of action by getting trounced in 2010. Bush did a much better job at ramming his agenda down the country's throat, and I've been sorely disappointed in the Dems inability to do the same, with a far larger majority. To me this speaks volumes. And they say the Republican party is in disarray. Agreed. In 2008 the country spoke loud and clear. The electorate wanted dramatic change, and they wanted nothing to do with the failed GOP policies of the previous 8 years. We gave the Dems sweeping power to do WHATEVER THE F*&K THEY WANTED. This country wanted and expected sweeping changes, and rather than do that, the Dems bickered amongst themselves and allowed themselves to be sidetracked by a minority that should have been relegated to the bleachers. Rather than completely ignore the GOP and simply pass all the legislation they wanted, they sought to establish a consensus with a party whose primary strategy was to oppose everything, and it worked. I don't blame the GOP for this, I blame the Dems. Bunch of pvssies, if you ask me, and I'm pretty p*ssed about it. Apparently not as the Dems tried to do whatever the F*** they wanted and now "Teddy Kenedy's Senate seat" is in the hands of a Republican. Just because 52% of the 54% of people who voted, voted for Obama does not give the Dems the mandate to do as they please with the entire country. Less than 1/3 of eligable voters wanted this man in the white house. |
| 2010-01-26 3:12 PM in reply to: #2635730 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? JoshR - 2010-01-26 2:38 PM Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:35 PM JoshR - 2010-01-26 2:27 PM Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:22 PM Pector55 - 2010-01-26 11:40 AM There is something called "spin." Basically, China cannot continue to buy U.S. bonds at the same rate so unless the U.S. fires up the printing presses, congress and the president will be forced to slow down on the spending. However, being politicians, they will spin it that they WANT to control spending, not that they are being forced to by the fact that other countries simply cannot and will not continue to dump money into bonds back by a falling dollar. Seems the moral of the story is if you want to control spending, never elect a Democrat to congress. Remember, it is Congress that appropriates funds, not the President. Or a republican as president Not necessarily as a President can propose all the cuts he/she wants but it has to get through congress first. For example Bush was forced to break his "no new tax pledge" to sell out to George Mitchell (a Dem) to get the budget. Reagan was unable to cut all the spending he wanted to because he worked under a Democratic Congress. Bush II was a fiscal liberal and could spend like a Democrat. Heck I have no clue why he was a Republican when it came to fiscal management. I'm just using the same data set you did to come to my conclusion. It's is also a falsehood to say that Republicans are fiscally conservative. Look at the data from the last 30 years and it is obvious that neither Democrats nor Republicans are fiscally conservative. Just because it's a party line doesn't make it true. I don't think you were as I was looking at which party controlled the House which generates the budget according to the constitution. You were looking at the President who ultimately does not have a whole heck of a lot to do with the budget. I'll give you the point that some Republicans have more away from small government. But, then again no Democrats have move toward fiscal conservatism. |
| 2010-01-26 3:12 PM in reply to: #2635802 |
| Pro 3932 Irvine, California | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Oh and one more thing. I agree with the OP that his latest "plan" to put a freeze on discretionary spending is a stupid attempt to fool everyone. It also shows his lack of principle. If he truly believes that the right way to get the economy out of the biggest recession since the Great Depression is to stimulate it with government spending, then he should stick to his guns and just frickin' DO IT. Freezing spending and issuing tax cuts is the worst possible thing he could do right now. It will simply prolong the recession. He's trying to please all sides, and in the process is pleasing no one. |
| 2010-01-26 3:15 PM in reply to: #2635761 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? AcesFull - 2010-01-26 3:52 PMRather than completely ignore the GOP and simply pass all the legislation they wanted, they sought to establish a consensus with a party whose primary strategy was to oppose everything, and it worked. I don't blame the GOP for this, I blame the Dems. Bunch of pvssies, if you ask me, and I'm pretty p*ssed about it. Are you saying they tried to make the Repubs happy and include them in the process? That's simply not true. The Dems had numerous closed door meetings where the Repubs were not allowed to attend. This was a completely partisan issue. However the Dems are so fractured they could not even have a consensus among themselves. Edited by TriRSquared 2010-01-26 3:19 PM |
| 2010-01-26 3:16 PM in reply to: #2635802 |
| Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Tripolar - 2010-01-26 3:07 PM cardenas1 - 2010-01-26 11:47 AM Fact is independent voters are upset because they are not gettign the CHANGE they heard about for over a year on the campaign trail. It is more of the same. Obama will continue to be bashed by the right and loved by the hard left. It's those in the middle he is losing touch with. When he won the elction with just over 50% of the votes, he did not have the great support everyone is saying has gone away. He is simply losing 15-25% of those who did vote for him in the first place. Tonights speech will be a great speach I am sure. But after so many speeches and little action to back up, it will be another disapointment. I only hope that some of the actions he discusses to get us on the right track come to fruition. As much as I admit not being a fan of his, this is a mess we will all have to clean up regardless so prefer to see that start now vs. 2012 after 2 more years of damage. 2 cents. This is simply not true. If anything, Obama has been extremely centrist so far in everything he's done. I voted for him, and would be considered by many to be "hard left" on many (but not all) issues, and I'm very disappointed in him so far. He's not done anything he promised he would do. Many on the right scream and holler that he's a socialist/Marxist/communist/Muslim/America-hater, but nothing could be further from the truth. If you take a cold, hard look at what he's done, he's been extremely centrist. Health-care reform? He campaigned on a public option, no mandates, and tight regulation of private insurance. What does it look like now? A mandate for everyone to buy crappy private insurance, no public option, very little regulation. He campaigned on being transparent, but we've found out that much of the healthcare bill was the result of him making private, secret deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. He's bailed out Wall Street, and hasn't done anything to rein in the kind of crazy financial behavior that got us to the precipice in the first place. He's surrounded himself with Washington insiders and folks with questionable ties to Wall Street. The list goes on and on. Perhaps he made a calculation that all of this was necessary, that it would be the only way for him to get anything done. But it makes him look unprincipled and spineless. I'm still willing to see if he can turn it around, but so far, no, he hasn't brought about any of the change I voted for him to bring about. For someone the supposedly as smart and politically savy as Obama, how the heck can he get himself in a position that he is appears to govern from the far left in the eyes of a conservative but he is not left enough for the guys like Tripolar? I would have thought that that would have be an impossible thing to do, but Obama did it. |
| 2010-01-26 3:17 PM in reply to: #2635824 |
| Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:16 PM Tripolar - 2010-01-26 3:07 PM cardenas1 - 2010-01-26 11:47 AM Fact is independent voters are upset because they are not gettign the CHANGE they heard about for over a year on the campaign trail. It is more of the same. Obama will continue to be bashed by the right and loved by the hard left. It's those in the middle he is losing touch with. When he won the elction with just over 50% of the votes, he did not have the great support everyone is saying has gone away. He is simply losing 15-25% of those who did vote for him in the first place. Tonights speech will be a great speach I am sure. But after so many speeches and little action to back up, it will be another disapointment. I only hope that some of the actions he discusses to get us on the right track come to fruition. As much as I admit not being a fan of his, this is a mess we will all have to clean up regardless so prefer to see that start now vs. 2012 after 2 more years of damage. 2 cents. This is simply not true. If anything, Obama has been extremely centrist so far in everything he's done. I voted for him, and would be considered by many to be "hard left" on many (but not all) issues, and I'm very disappointed in him so far. He's not done anything he promised he would do. Many on the right scream and holler that he's a socialist/Marxist/communist/Muslim/America-hater, but nothing could be further from the truth. If you take a cold, hard look at what he's done, he's been extremely centrist. Health-care reform? He campaigned on a public option, no mandates, and tight regulation of private insurance. What does it look like now? A mandate for everyone to buy crappy private insurance, no public option, very little regulation. He campaigned on being transparent, but we've found out that much of the healthcare bill was the result of him making private, secret deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. He's bailed out Wall Street, and hasn't done anything to rein in the kind of crazy financial behavior that got us to the precipice in the first place. He's surrounded himself with Washington insiders and folks with questionable ties to Wall Street. The list goes on and on. Perhaps he made a calculation that all of this was necessary, that it would be the only way for him to get anything done. But it makes him look unprincipled and spineless. I'm still willing to see if he can turn it around, but so far, no, he hasn't brought about any of the change I voted for him to bring about. For someone the supposedly as smart and politically savy as Obama, how the heck can he get himself in a position that he is appears to govern from the far left in the eyes of a conservative but he is not left enough for the guys like Tripolar? I would have thought that that would have be an impossible thing to do, but Obama did it. My thoughts exactly. How to screw up a presidential administration (perceived or real) in 12 easy months |
| 2010-01-26 3:17 PM in reply to: #2635813 |
| Champion 7347 SRQ, FL | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? Tripolar - 2010-01-26 4:12 PM Oh and one more thing. I agree with the OP that his latest "plan" to put a freeze on discretionary spending is a stupid attempt to fool everyone. It also shows his lack of principle. If he truly believes that the right way to get the economy out of the biggest recession since the Great Depression is to stimulate it with government spending, then he should stick to his guns and just frickin' DO IT. Freezing spending and issuing tax cuts is the worst possible thing he could do right now. It will simply prolong the recession. He's trying to please all sides, and in the process is pleasing no one. To this I totally agree. |
| 2010-01-26 3:22 PM in reply to: #2635832 |
| Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? I actually enjoy this thread... Must be the cynical and negative mood I'm already in. I feel at home here. |
| 2010-01-26 3:28 PM in reply to: #2635831 |
| Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: How dumb does he think we are? ChrisM - 2010-01-26 4:17 PM Jackemy - 2010-01-26 1:16 PM For someone the supposedly as smart and politically savy as Obama, how the heck can he get himself in a position that he is appears to govern from the far left in the eyes of a conservative but he is not left enough for the guys like Tripolar? I would have thought that that would have be an impossible thing to do, but Obama did it. To this point, the Brady Campaign (very left) gave him all F's recently. However, I applaud the president on this move. This shows me that either he, or his handlers, have not ignored ALL history. (1996) I mainly applaud the 65 Dems who wrote a letter to the president to steer him in the correct direction. Don't over-generalize "Democrat." I believe there are some good blue dogs out there who don't appreciate the association with the Pelosi/Reid camp. I actually feel bad for the fact that there are extreme lefties out there hijacking the party from some good people. Sound familiar? There are some folks on the right who have to bear the same title as some real winners too. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK