Is Obama getting it too rough?

Koggit

Koggit

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
I was reading through this post on Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/28/...udget-juices-carriers-for-more-cash/#comments

And, well.. wow. How the hell can anyone bitch about increased taxes with the unfathomable deficit we're facing?

Conservatives claimed he'd have a 4-yr honeymoon. That's proven 200% false, he's getting the shaft for inherited problems less than 100 days in. No matter what he chooses to do, it usually has unfortunate consequences due to the economic situation (but oftentimes the alternative to what he chose would've had even worse consequences) -- he just can't win. People look at the result, or projected effect of his decisions and don't like it, so blame Obama. They seem too simple-minded to understand our situation is fucked and no choice will result in rainbows and unicorns.

Most of Obama's decisions have been made in terms of, which would you prefer, shit or a shit sandwich -- and I feel most of his actions have been good ones. Of course I don't want shit, but I'm not stupid enough to blame Obama for it. It really seems most Americans are that simple-minded.
 
Republicans always seem to do this. They fuck up the country within their term(s), then a Democrat is elected to clean the shit up, yet the Democrat gets blamed for the shit that was already there when they were elected.

I mean really, would things be much better already if McCain had been elected?
 
he will have a 4 year honeymoon. where is he getting the shaft from? pundits and random internet posts? the voters will give him the free pass.
 
I'm an Obama supporter and even I dont think he's getting it too rough. The opposition seems about par for the course IMO. The republicans have nothing to gain in supporting the spending bills and tax increases and nothing to lose in opposing them. If the economy recovers, they can always say that their staunch opposition "moderated" the "leftist spending craze". If the economy stays in the tank, they can say that things would be better if they went with conservative principles. There is no downside.

The only thing that frosts my cookies is this notion that Pres. Obama has somehow gone back on his word re. troop withdrawl. He always said that he would be judicious pulling out and he though 16 months was about the right timetable, but would consult with the generals. Now he's set August 2010 as the end goal. People are saying that cause he's extended the time frame to 19 months (from the inauguration) that this is somehow a broken campaign promise. IMO, it certainly looks consistant with what he said he do. The generals presented a persuasive argument that they should try and keep as many folks there thru the election period in Iraq later this year. However, that he's still only a few months from his original estimate doesnt seem like a broken promise to me.

Now the 50K residual force is something they can argue about. However, any thinking person knows that once American troops go somewhere, they never fully leave (60+ years and we're still in Japan?) John McCain was right to suggest that we'd be in Iraq a hundred years. We dont have a good record of leaving (the only places we've left off hand were France and Vietnam...and I aint too sure about France).
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']he will have a 4 year honeymoon. where is he getting the shaft from? pundits and random internet posts? the voters will give him the free pass.[/quote]


that is true.. only the extreme conservatives media are really bitching.. most of America is pretty fucking supportive of Obama
 
I never really talk politics with people in person but online I see far more hate than praise.. and I fully expect the republican candidate in 4yrs to campaign on these issues that aren't Obama fault. e.g. comparing taxation during Obama years to previous terms, cite unemployment, etc.. and I won't be the least bit surprised when most Americans lap it and up and bring the pitchforks to Obama for what his administration inherited.
 
you can find people that hate kittens and puppies online. obamas approval rating is between 60-70%, so hes doubling bush. and of course the republican candidate will rail on him for those issues come 2012, would you expect anything less? want to see how voters (not pundits & internet junkies) think obama is doing, head to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ from time to time and check the poll numbers. those are all that really matter.
 
How many times has Obama mentioned Bush in a negative light even though Obama is already President? Who gives a shit how people perceive the President. It comes with the territory to get the shaft in bad times.
 
[quote name='Magehart']How many times has Obama mentioned Bush in a negative light even though Obama is already President?[/quote]

Not nearly as many times as Bill Clinton did back in the 90s.
 
I think it's hilarious (and pathetic) that on the Barnes & Noble new hardcovers table there are already two anti-Obama books - a month into his presidency. Amazing. I don't know if any other president received that kind of reaction right off the bat, but I would be surprised if they had.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Eh, thats probably more of the authors just riding the anti-Obama wave so they can make a buck off it.[/quote]

I'm sure, but the fact that there is enough of a wave to profit from this soon is astounding. As bad as Bush got it in the second half of his presidency, I don't think there was this kind of sentiment in the first few months of it.
 
Obama spoke of uniting parties, moderate views, etc. Instead we are getting Pelosi & Co. big government, big spending, big taxing in a time we need the opposite. He deserves it, he doesn't look much more than a sock puppet for the far left right now.

Instead of stimulating private business which has been a stronghold of the US, the "stimulus" focuses on spending for welfare and big government projects, while ratcheting up taxes (especially starting in 2011). 1 trillion in new taxes over 10yrs, yippe! Gas will probably be $10/gallon by the time Obama is out of office, not that it will matter since they are proposing the "mile tax" now.

Enjoy this forum while you can, before it is censored or altered by Obama and Co's new fairness doctrine:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx
http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Po...18-Extending-the-fairness-doctrine-to-the-web
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']I'm sure, but the fact that there is enough of a wave to profit from this soon is astounding. As bad as Bush got it in the second half of his presidency, I don't think there was this kind of sentiment in the first few months of it.[/quote]
I got backlash for saying it last time, but i really think it's just conservative bitterness. They feel like they owe it to Obama to be as harsh as they can after what Bush got near the end. Only, they refuse to even give Obama a chance. It seems that Bush was given enough of a chance at the beginning of his presidency, at least after the election was finally settled.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Obama spoke of uniting parties, moderate views, etc. Instead we are getting Pelosi & Co. big government, big spending, big taxing in a time we need the opposite. He deserves it, he doesn't look much more than a sock puppet for the far left right now.

Instead of stimulating private business which has been a stronghold of the US, the "stimulus" focuses on spending for welfare and big government projects, while ratcheting up taxes (especially starting in 2011). 1 trillion in new taxes over 10yrs, yippe! Gas will probably be $10/gallon by the time Obama is out of office, not that it will matter since they are proposing the "mile tax" now.

Enjoy this forum while you can, before it is censored or altered by Obama and Co's new fairness doctrine:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx
http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Po...18-Extending-the-fairness-doctrine-to-the-web[/QUOTE]

we're getting what America voted for..
 
Well Bush's first term started with losing the popular vote, so there was plenty of hate about that, but I don't think there was as much about his policies. Then less than a year in there was 9/11 and he rode that through his first term and into the second, but it faded after Iraq wasn't turning out so great. So really Bush got a free pass for 3 or 4 years thanks to 9/11, then people started to hate him en masse.
 
Obama's been a huge proponent of net neutrality and his appointment of Genachowski proves Ruined is nothing but a Chicken Little anti-Obama hack..
 
[quote name='Ruined']Obama spoke of uniting parties, moderate views, etc. Instead we are getting Pelosi & Co. big government, big spending, big taxing in a time we need the opposite. He deserves it, he doesn't look much more than a sock puppet for the far left right now.[/QUOTE]Obama has tried very hard to work with Republicans. He even invited them over to the Superbowl game. I can tell he has been trying to work with them, but the problem is they are just really tough to change, and many of them want to do the exact same things Bush did that never worked (just cut taxes for the rich, who don't spend any more, and continues to leave other classes losing their job). Because Republicans won't compromise, Obama just has to do whatever he needs to in order to get stuff done. While I don't want to spend a lot of money, something has to be done. I seriously don't feel McCain would have done any better fixing this (probably would have stuck to Bush's tax cuts which don't work). I personally feel Hilary would have been best at handling the economic situation (with the help of Bill), but that's just me.
 
Whether you want to believe it or not, Bush always pandered to the Democrats more than the Republicans during his administration, especially during the first 2 years when the Republicans decided to split power with the Democrats in the Senate (a stupid move IMO) which ended up with the Dems in power for most of that time, anyway.

Pretty much since 1994, Bipartisanship has been dead in DC.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Whether you want to believe it or not, Bush always pandered to the Democrats more than the Republicans during his administration[/QUOTE]
You can't possibly expect something that absurd to stand without someone asking for something that supports that conjecture. So prove it in any way at all.

A Tom Delay congress working with Democrats. Get the fuck out of here.
 
[quote name='speedracer']You can't possibly expect something that absurd to stand without someone asking for something that supports that conjecture. So prove it in any way at all.

A Tom Delay congress working with Democrats. Get the fuck out of here.[/QUOTE]

KingBroly is as KingBroly does.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Obama spoke of uniting parties, moderate views, etc. Instead we are getting Pelosi & Co. big government, big spending, big taxing in a time we need the opposite. He deserves it, he doesn't look much more than a sock puppet for the far left right now.

Instead of stimulating private business which has been a stronghold of the US, the "stimulus" focuses on spending for welfare and big government projects, while ratcheting up taxes (especially starting in 2011). 1 trillion in new taxes over 10yrs, yippe! Gas will probably be $10/gallon by the time Obama is out of office, not that it will matter since they are proposing the "mile tax" now.[/quote]

A full 1/3 of the money allocated in the stimulus package comes in the form of tax cuts. What you disregard as "big government" and "big spending" is a misnomer for the idea of "deficit spending," which, in the case of the stimulus, involves both spending increases and tax reductions.

And we all know full well that deficit spending is a bipartisan tradition. ;)

Enjoy this forum while you can, before it is censored or altered by Obama and Co's new fairness doctrine:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080812160747.aspx
http://www.examiner.com/x-431-SF-Po...18-Extending-the-fairness-doctrine-to-the-web
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what it means. FFS, hombre: if you're going to have an opinion, let it be an informed one. Unless you'd like to lump yourselves in with the unwashed, uninformed radio twits that are all aflutter about the fairness doctrine.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04allies.html

Now you can shut your mouth, and go back to obscurity.[/QUOTE]
Aren't you a cutie? And how fun! The NYT is trash until you quote it. Nobody will notice your hypocrisy on that though. We'll keep it between us.

So, um, you're saying that an article that states that Bush called on Kennedy =
Bush always pandered to the Democrats more than the Republicans during his administration
Click to expand...
Right.

If you're going to call someone out and be a total douchebag about it, try to have a little stronger position. That article is dog shit.. and if all you have is dog shit, just hush up son.

DemocratS != Kennedy
 
Eh, well, Laura wasn't exactly an easy target for jokes either. Perhaps she didn't need to be, since her husband did a solid enough job filling that role for them both.
 
OP, every president will always blame as much bad on his predecessor as possible. He will also always take as much credit for any good as possible. To make matters worse, his supporters/detractors will help pile on that blame/credit whether it's due or not. That's just the beauty of politics.

You do have to admit it's just a little bit cute though, that the upcoming stimulus package has an earmark in it from one "Senator" Obama, who's name was recently removed from it, in light of "President" Obama lambasting such Earmarks for weeks now. That's change we can believe in.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']http://www.democrats.com/bushdemocrats

There is a list of democrats, from a democrat website which is devoted to replacing them because they were siding with Bush on multiple key issues.[/quote]
You're not reading your sources, you're just googling some string and taking a cursory glance. That page breaks Dems up into 4 kinds, the worst being a BushDemocrat (denoted BDI).

They identify 0 BDIs.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1073

Another site, made by democrats, just for you.
Click to expand...
This site identifies "Bush Dog Democrats" by their votes on Iraq and the FISA bill and that's it.

Have you ever sourced a position before?
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']NOBODY can control the internet. They're off their rocker if they even have thoughts of trying.[/QUOTE]

Of course they can. In fact, China's government does exactly that, and does it successfully. They block certain content and their population cannot view it. The technology is there, and if something like the "fairness doctrine" is put into place the legislation will be there too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Channels 2-13 on TV would be in jeopardy also for the same reason radio would be in jeopardy.
 
There are solutions that end in rainbows and unicorns, they just aren't possible within the current political framework.

When your government's sole focus is making the other guy look worse, of course you're going to have lots of fucking troubles. Instead of actually fixing things they're all wagging their dicks and pointing fingers. They're all more interested than turning a personal profit and getting the other guy in trouble than they are doing their fucking jobs.

Maybe I'm just simple minded, but it seems politics would run a lot smoother without politicians.


[quote name='Koggit']They seem too simple-minded to understand our situation is fucked and no choice will result in rainbows and unicorns.
[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']
Maybe I'm just simple minded, but it seems politics would run a lot smoother without politicians.[/QUOTE]

The only real answer - Robot replacements.
 
[quote name='Ruined']Of course they can. In fact, China's government does exactly that, and does it successfully. They block certain content and their population cannot view it. The technology is there, and if something like the "fairness doctrine" is put into place the legislation will be there too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Channels 2-13 on TV would be in jeopardy also for the same reason radio would be in jeopardy.[/quote]

It worked in China because 4 or 5 people owned computers in China around 1995.

Getting it to happen here would require a massive overhaul of internet when there are so many other problems that require immediate attention.

In order to get the ball moving into that direction, Al Queda would have to ram airplanes into all of the level 3 servers.
 
The only solution is the banning of political parties. Let people run on their own merit.

I'm really surprised at how Rush Limbaugh is getting so much press lately. He's gone from a conservative blowhard to a strung out junkie to a leading candidate for the Presidency in 2012 (yeah, I said it) in record time. He's been super rough on Obama but didn't we all expect that. Did we think that he would actually be civil toward any Democrat?
 
I suspect there's probably an increase in Limbaugh's ratings that highly correlates with, say, a decrease in the Daily Show's ratings.

Not that I know either is, for certain, the case. Just a hunch.
 
My favorite Rush idea,

Feminism was created to help ugly women enter mainstream society.

And theres the classic, when he said Micheal J. Fox was "acting" and overplaying the "shaking".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But people are eating this shit up. I don't know what's worse. Spewing this crap or sitting there and listening to it like it's Billy friggin Graham on the radio.
 
I think people like hearing the extreme view. He says alot of things that people think but are too scared to say for themselves. There are alot of people that still fear black people but won't say so. They also fear illegal immigrants, atheists, gays, intelligent women, and pretty much anything else that represents the "New America".

I'm sure there are the same types stirring the pot for liberals but I've never found the elusive species known as liberal talk radio.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I think people like hearing the extreme view. He says alot of things that people think but are too scared to say for themselves. There are alot of people that still fear black people but won't say so. They also fear illegal immigrants, atheists, gays, intelligent women, and pretty much anything else that represents the "New America".

I'm sure there are the same types stirring the pot for liberals but I've never found the elusive species known as liberal talk radio.[/quote]

I fear black people because I watched all of the cutscenes in San Andreas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top