Page 1 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2012, 11:39 am

Obama has had 4 years to demonstrate his incompetence. He had a two year gimme when the Democrats controlled both houses of congress. Result: a feeble non-recovery in the economy. It is clear that Obama is in way over his head.

I am voting for Mitt the Magic Mormon simply because he has fewer against point than Obama. When Mitt was governor of Massachusetts he did not leave the state economically on its back. And if any of you love Obama because of Obama-care remember Mitt did it first in Massachusetts with his medical plan which is still in effect. By the way, I consider that an against Romney.

Mitt is less worse than Obama who has proven that in another four years he can totally ruin the United States.

And there is this OUTRAGE against our civil rights that your boy Obama signed:

President Obama today signed the highly controversial Defense Spending Bill. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with its so-called Homeland Battlefield provisions, allows, according to many legal scholars, the indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military. What is most striking is a lengthy signing statement by Obama, in which he maintains his reservations about the Homeland Battlefield provisions, saying, 'I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.' His defense of civil liberties in the signing statement was passionate. Nonetheless, at the same moment, he signed the bill into law. -- ma/RSN


resident Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.


In short he acknowledged the danger to our civil liberties and he signed the damned thing anyway.

This is the worst thing since President John Adams signed The Alien and Sedition Act into law.

ruveyn



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Oct 2012, 11:43 am

I feel bad for Obama.

There was a documentary on UK TV last night interviewing idiotic tea party members rallying against him. This show made the point that one of the main reasons Obama has acheived very little is because every legislative change he has attempted to make has been vetoed and blocked at the congressional level by the GOP.

There is kindof a crab mentality going on, everytime the democrats try to bring in a reform the republicans are blocking it. Its no wonder Obama can't get any work done.

The tea party say they don't oppose him because he is black. I don't believe it for a moment, they are lying through their teeth. I find it amazing how individuals so utterly incapable of critical free thought can use the rallying point of 'freedom' as their banner. The main issue that seems to be galvanising their cause is the idea that poor people might actually be able to access healthcare and in their idiotic minds this somehow equates to communism.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

29 Oct 2012, 12:33 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I feel bad for Obama.

There was a documentary on UK TV last night interviewing idiotic tea party members rallying against him. This show made the point that one of the main reasons Obama has acheived very little is because every legislative change he has attempted to make has been vetoed and blocked at the congressional level by the GOP.

There is kindof a crab mentality going on, everytime the democrats try to bring in a reform the republicans are blocking it. Its no wonder Obama can't get any work done.

The tea party say they don't oppose him because he is black. I don't believe it for a moment, they are lying through their teeth. I find it amazing how individuals so utterly incapable of critical free thought can use the rallying point of 'freedom' as their banner. The main issue that seems to be galvanising their cause is the idea that poor people might actually be able to access healthcare and in their idiotic minds this somehow equates to communism.


That's not true. The GOP only took control of the house on January 3rd 2011. Before that Democrats had a strong majority in the house, a supermajority in the senate, and the White House. Obama could of passed anything he wanted without a single GOP vote as long as he could get his own party to go along with it.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Oct 2012, 1:46 pm

thomas81 wrote:
I feel bad for Obama.

There was a documentary on UK TV last night interviewing idiotic tea party members rallying against him. This show made the point that one of the main reasons Obama has acheived very little is because every legislative change he has attempted to make has been vetoed and blocked at the congressional level by the GOP.

There is kindof a crab mentality going on, everytime the democrats try to bring in a reform the republicans are blocking it. Its no wonder Obama can't get any work done.
.


He had TWO WHOLE YEARS with a majority in both houses of congress. And what did we get? Obama-care. Also increased bailouts to banks and badly run mega corporations. That is what two years of unopposed power in OBama's hands produced.

ruveynb



Noodlebug
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 127

29 Oct 2012, 2:46 pm

What about third parties? Any of them are better than these two clowns.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

29 Oct 2012, 3:01 pm

Noodlebug wrote:
What about third parties? Any of them are better than these two clowns.

For what it's worth, local bookies are laying odds of 7 to 3 (70%/30%) in favor of Mr. Obama being re-elected over Mr. Romney. The odds close to 26 to 24 (52%/48%) in favor of Mr. Obama being re-elected over any of the Green, Libertarian and Republican candidates combined.

This makes the Greens and Libertarians little more than spoilers for the GOP. If they could combine into one party (the GLP?), then Mr. Romney might have a chance of stealing the election.

I predict Mr. Obama as the winner.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


LeeAnderson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 936
Location: Cookeville, Tennessee

29 Oct 2012, 3:04 pm

I am voting for Romney but I wish Ron Paul had stood a chance, he would be getting my vote if he could be a real financial contender in the ads, etc. If he was a realistic choice for my vote.



blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

29 Oct 2012, 3:09 pm

I've enjoyed Obama's presidency for the fact that those clowns who bought into the hope and change BS got totally duped. And they can't even deny it. Well, some still do.

I'm not gonna vote and honestly don't know who I would vote for between the two. NY is going Obama anyway.


_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Oct 2012, 3:25 pm

ruveyn wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I feel bad for Obama.

There was a documentary on UK TV last night interviewing idiotic tea party members rallying against him. This show made the point that one of the main reasons Obama has acheived very little is because every legislative change he has attempted to make has been vetoed and blocked at the congressional level by the GOP.

There is kindof a crab mentality going on, everytime the democrats try to bring in a reform the republicans are blocking it. Its no wonder Obama can't get any work done.
.


He had TWO WHOLE YEARS with a majority in both houses of congress. And what did we get? Obama-care.
ruveynb


I agree with you on the bailouts but in his defence, and speaking as a foreign observer Obamacare seemed like one of his better ideas.

Its a source of puzzlement to me and many of my fellow non-Americans why so many Americans railed against it. Here in the UK the NHS (an institution that is entirely publicly funded) is such a sacred cow that not even the most hardline of conservatives would dare propose its privatisation. Rightly so in my opinion because in this country, no matter how bad things get for you, the one thing you can count on is that you can see a doctor at point of demand. One of the few things that makes me glad to say I live here.

Even from a batshit fanatical, right wing, gung ho, reactionary Tea party style perspective, you'd expect Obama to have gotten a bit more support than he is considering he was the one that 'got' Bin Laden. Not a bit of it. *shrugs shoulders*

I guess in America, race still trumps all. Very sad indictment.



Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Oct 2012, 4:12 pm

ruveyn wrote:
He had TWO WHOLE YEARS with a majority in both houses of congress.


Yes, you're right. He did. Except, I seem to recall that the majority those first two years was marginal enough that, after the death of Ted Kennedy and the subsequent election of Scott Brown, the Democrats still did not have the numbers to stave off filibusters, which the Republicans abused in an unprecedented amount. The Republicans have vowed from day one to block everything Obama passed by them, even laws that would have positive effects on joblessness and the economy, because their ultimate mission is to see Obama fail and subsequently be voted out of office.

Obama is not blameless. Perhaps his insistence on bipartisanship was a bit naive, and occasionally came at too high a cost. But to imply that he had two years where he could do whatever he wanted, and the Congress would by virtue of its political majority ram it through, is just factually inaccurate. You cited Obamacare. Do you not remember all the clamoring on the left for a public option, and how disappointed and demoralized the progressive wing of the Democratic base was when Obama compromised and cut it from the bill? Do you not remember the way the Republicans demanded that votes on Obamacare be decided by a 60% supermajority that the Dems did not have, rather than the simple 51% majority they did have? Do you not remember Mitch McConnell saying, in a rare moment of candid honesty, that the primary goal of the Republican party was to ensure that Obama was "a one-term President"?

I'll say again-- Obama is not blameless for this. But neither are the Republicans. Let's remember under whose watch the economy collapsed in the first place.


_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin.


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

29 Oct 2012, 10:59 pm

He hasn't done much. He makes grand proclamations from the oval office, and his then majority in both houses craft policy, or his czars handle business. Be it the stimulus, Financial reform, or Obamacare.

I hope Romney doesn't listen to the GOP much if he wins, not as a reaction to Obama, I'm just not a great fan of those who make up the inner ring of the party, or the radical newcomers looking to redefine the party.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

29 Oct 2012, 11:07 pm

Chevand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
He had TWO WHOLE YEARS with a majority in both houses of congress.


I'll say again-- Obama is not blameless for this. But neither are the Republicans. Let's remember under whose watch the economy collapsed in the first place.


But lets also acknowledge that neither party's policies are engines of economic growth. Nor can anyone be the exception to the depression that ravishes the American economy every 40 years. The American capitalistic system sees its foundations questioned following every one of these catastrophes, but no credit is ever given for our times of great growth, bringing millions into the middle class, and bringing millions more around the world out of poverty.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


ghoti
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,596

29 Oct 2012, 11:34 pm

Noodlebug wrote:
What about third parties? Any of them are better than these two clowns.


I am in a state already decided, so i won't feel that i am wasting my vote any more by voting 3rd party. So that who i feel whose views closest match mine in Jill Stein.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

30 Oct 2012, 3:35 am

Chevand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
He had TWO WHOLE YEARS with a majority in both houses of congress.


Yes, you're right. He did. Except, I seem to recall that the majority those first two years was marginal enough that, after the death of Ted Kennedy and the subsequent election of Scott Brown, the Democrats still did not have the numbers to stave off filibusters, which the Republicans abused in an unprecedented amount. The Republicans have vowed from day one to block everything Obama passed by them, even laws that would have positive effects on joblessness and the economy, because their ultimate mission is to see Obama fail and subsequently be voted out of office.

Obama is not blameless. Perhaps his insistence on bipartisanship was a bit naive, and occasionally came at too high a cost. But to imply that he had two years where he could do whatever he wanted, and the Congress would by virtue of its political majority ram it through, is just factually inaccurate. You cited Obamacare. Do you not remember all the clamoring on the left for a public option, and how disappointed and demoralized the progressive wing of the Democratic base was when Obama compromised and cut it from the bill? Do you not remember the way the Republicans demanded that votes on Obamacare be decided by a 60% supermajority that the Dems did not have, rather than the simple 51% majority they did have? Do you not remember Mitch McConnell saying, in a rare moment of candid honesty, that the primary goal of the Republican party was to ensure that Obama was "a one-term President"?

I'll say again-- Obama is not blameless for this. But neither are the Republicans. Let's remember under whose watch the economy collapsed in the first place.


The Democrats did have a filler-buster supermajority until February 4, 2010 and Obamacare was passed by reconciliation(bypassing the filibuster) a little more than a month later. Obama had to compromise with his own party not the GOP, he never really pushed for it either. Obama is foremost and opportunist, a real politician. He didn't have the fortitude for that fight so he proposed an old Heritage Foundation idea/Romneycare. The Democrats passed a bill the American public didn't want, the liberal state of Massachusetts elected a Republican for the first time in like 50 years and the Democrats had the worst midterm loss in 72 years.

Regardless, there is really no excuse to say he couldn't get anything done because he was being obstructed, it's really easy to say that now when you can't do it but when he could he didn't. Obama came to have a revelation about gay marriage and illegal immigration in an election year? How convenient.

The vast majority of the GOP sucks, you're not going to get any argument from me but so does Obama.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

30 Oct 2012, 10:27 am

Quite frankly there is no point in dissing the current president. The office of the presidency is a puppet position.

Between romney and obama I will pick obama. I cant say much about his economic track record since it was a mess dumped on his lap and congress has been blocking him at every turn (and we all know congress cooperation is all about money and favors not about doing what is right for the nation).

But the man does have an amazing foreign policy record in my eyes.

Romney on the other hand has shown himself to be in the 1970's mentality that the solution to everything is to bully other nations and use the military ... not to mention that as a person he has repeatedly shown an utter disconnection with the financial reality of the non-ultrarich. 'Bet you 10 thousand bucks' ... I don't need to say anything else.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Oct 2012, 10:46 am

It would be unethical to vote Rommey.

Simple as that.

We know for a fact that foreign and economical policies would be the same with Obama or Rommey. (Stop fooling yourselves, both parties are extreme right and war mongers). So, what is left? Civil Rights, science and all that stuff. The republican party has made it clear that they are against 1) Abortion, 2) Gay marriage. 3) Doing anything about global warming. 4) Science education.

Republicans are the BS party. Republicans are also the tyranny of religion over minorities party. It would be an utter fail in ethics to vote Rommey. I consider anyone who would even ponder such a vote to be a bad person and an enemy of science. There, I said it.


_________________
.