|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Picking Sarah Palin sure didn't help much, either.
Actually, picking Sarah Palin gave McCain quite a bounce coming out of the GOP convention.
lol, selective memory much? Palin is an idiot, who made idiot statements the whole campaign trail, she didn't do McCain ANY favors, and McCain/Palin support was going down the closer to november it got, ESPECIALLY during the debates.
Actually his memory is fine.. Palin did give McCain a nice bump coming out of the convention... she was pretty, energetic, a hockey mom, and if I recall, her convention speech wasn't bad... it was later when she started to have to think on her feet that she became an albatross around his neck.. so I suppose you are both right...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I call BS. not the view of most Americans? Y'all been calling doomsday and saying Obama was trash and a commie and a socialist and a Muslim non citizen since he became president.
Yet he got voted in... Twice.
Which says two things: you're statement is full of it. And he's not the worst president.
Now flip that statement around... y'all been saying Bush was on cocaine and a deserter and a fascist.. yet he got elected: Twice... so does it say the same two things? That you are full of it and he's not the worst President?
to you and southwest.
show me where i said obama is a great president.
i'll wait.
what I said was he isn't the worst. THATS what i said. don't twist it.
 I hate when discussions go this route.. show me where I said, that you said, that Obama was a great President... You are trying to use logic as to why he's not the worst, that could quite easily be applied to W... yet most people have him on the list of worst...
I went back through the thread and noticed that you are yet to make a declaration of who is on the list for worst Presidents since WWII.. your involvement here has been solely to prove that Obama does NOT belong on the list... so if you think W does belong on the list, then please tell me how your defense of Obama does not also apply to W.. if you think W does NOT belong on the list, then nevermind. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Isnt this just kind of a recent memory thing?
Obamas the president now, so he is the worst because his detractors are in a uproar. Slightly below him is GWB because he was the last president so he is a little more fresh on the mind of his detractors, and so on and so on.
The farther you get away from his time in office the better that Presidents term seems too have been.
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,480 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I call BS. not the view of most Americans? Y'all been calling doomsday and saying Obama was trash and a commie and a socialist and a Muslim non citizen since he became president.
Yet he got voted in... Twice.
Which says two things: you're statement is full of it. And he's not the worst president.
Now flip that statement around... y'all been saying Bush was on cocaine and a deserter and a fascist.. yet he got elected: Twice... so does it say the same two things? That you are full of it and he's not the worst President?
to you and southwest.
show me where i said obama is a great president.
i'll wait.
what I said was he isn't the worst. THATS what i said. don't twist it.
I hate when discussions go this route.. show me where I said, that you said, that Obama was a great President... You are trying to use logic as to why he's not the worst, that could quite easily be applied to W... yet most people have him on the list of worst...
I went back through the thread and noticed that you are yet to make a declaration of who is on the list for worst Presidents since WWII.. your involvement here has been solely to prove that Obama does NOT belong on the list... so if you think W does belong on the list, then please tell me how your defense of Obama does not also apply to W.. if you think W does NOT belong on the list, then nevermind.
i already explained on the other page why Bush wasn't the worst. i don't know why you hate when the discussion goes like that, because thats the truth. i never claimed that obama was the best, i simply said he isn't the worst. if you don't want me using that statement, don't put me in a position to do it then.
i think Reagan was the worst. but i'm going off history and not much else. see i was born in 87, so really the only presidents i can remember during office is Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Last edited by Swish; 07/03/14 09:41 AM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
i already explained on the other page why Bush wasn't the worst.
Sorry then, I must have missed that one.
Quote:
i don't know why you hate when the discussion goes like that, because thats the truth.
I hate when the "Show me where I said XYZ" starts, when I never accused you of saying XY or Z...
Quote:
i think Reagan was the worst. but i'm going off history and not much else. see i was born in 87, so really the only presidents i can remember during office is Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Reagan was the first President I ever voted for when I was 18 and I'd vote for him again tomorrow so needless to say, I think he is far closer to the top than the bottom.. but on that we will just have to disagree..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
Carter was a good man, just very weak. He might be even be weaker than Obama. Clinton made a joke of the Potus office.
I would be hard pressed to pick the biggest liar between Bill, Hill, or Barack. I assume Hill will be our next Prez because of the number of uninformed voters in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Clinton was an immoral and flawed man as a human being but he was a pretty good President... Much better than either of the two guys who have followed him.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
I assume Hill will be our next Prez because of the number of uninformed voters in this country.
I think most people view Hillary Clinton the same as people view Sarah Palin. They either love her or hate her. There are not many people who will change their minds to vote for her, if they wouldn't have in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
j/c
GWB inherited a $200+ Billion surplus when he took office. We were on track to pay off all debts within 10 years.
He left us completely in the gutter. $1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit...meaning we were SPEDNING $1.3 trillion more per year than we brought in from revenues. Housing market was crashed. Auto industry was a mess. Stock market was down to about 6K. Unemployment was the highest it had been in decades. Poverty had grown from 11% to near 15%. GDP was falling like a rock. Losing 750K jobs/month.
Criticize BO all you want and I wouldn't argue that there is certainly merit to doing so. But any person who does not consider GWB's presidency to be damn near criminal and BY FAR the worst presidency we've had in the last 30 years (or possibly ever) has completely lost their mind.
It really was the fear of having someone like GWB back in office that scared most voters to cast a ballot for BO. So if you think BO is the worst, remember it's GWB's performance that got him there in the first place.
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
I assume Hill will be our next Prez because of the number of uninformed voters in this country.
I think most people view Hillary Clinton the same as people view Sarah Palin. They either love her or hate her. There are not many people who will change their minds to vote for her, if they wouldn't have in the first place.
Yes, but there are a lot of people who will vote for her for no other reason than they want to be able to claim they voted for the first woman president, regardless if they like or even know about her stance on policies.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Not that it's a big deal because it happens all the time.. but the democrats went to great lengths to hammer home that McCain was old and out of touch when he ran for President in '08 because he was 70 years old at the time... Hillary will be 69 if she runs in 2016 so they will have to rewrite the narrative on what exactly "old and out of touch" really means. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 301
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 301 |
Quote:
j/c
GWB inherited a $200+ Billion surplus when he took office. We were on track to pay off all debts within 10 years.
He left us completely in the gutter. $1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit...meaning we were SPEDNING $1.3 trillion more per year than we brought in from revenues. Housing market was crashed. Auto industry was a mess. Stock market was down to about 6K. Unemployment was the highest it had been in decades. Poverty had grown from 11% to near 15%. GDP was falling like a rock. Losing 750K jobs/month.
Criticize BO all you want and I wouldn't argue that there is certainly merit to doing so. But any person who does not consider GWB's presidency to be damn near criminal and BY FAR the worst presidency we've had in the last 30 years (or possibly ever) has completely lost their mind.
It really was the fear of having someone like GWB back in office that scared most voters to cast a ballot for BO. So if you think BO is the worst, remember it's GWB's performance that got him there in the first place.
Surplus myth Link :
2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
Guess you also completely forgot about what happened 9 months into GW's first term. I think he should be given an award from not allowing the stock market to crash due to the attack on 9-11. Most voters remind me of a dog that sees a squirrel, the attention span of a knat. Let's see what Obama has accomplished so far:
Benghazi cover up
Fast and furious cover up
IRS targeting cover up
Immigration disaster
Trading the 5 of the worst Gitmo prisoners for a possible deserter
Obama Care Lies
Weakest foreign policy since Carter leaving our country weak
AP phone record seizures
Wire tapping
But hey,he looks a cool guy so we should have voted for him!
The Constitution shall never be construe to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
.. ( Clinton was an immoral and flawed man as a human being but he was a pretty good President... Much better than either of the two guys who have followed him. )
..........................................................................................
Well said;very accurate ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,391 |
Every administration has scandals. So things like the Benghazi/IRS cover-up stories are more important than a $1.3 trillion dollar spending shortfall or a housing collapse? More important than invading a country for illegitimate reasons? Really? 
------------------------------
*In Baker we trust*
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
I never understand people that talk about how weak we are on foreign policy and then come back and complain about deficits. They go hand-in-hand. If you want lower deficits, you have to relinquish your title of world's police. If you want strong foreign policy, you have to accept staggering deficits. Strong foreign policy is perhaps the single most expensive element of a huge budget. I'm more than happy to give up foreign policy "strength", which for the US has long focused on either buying off the enemy of our enemy or using a massive military spending to intimidate people.
As to the original topic: The fact that people want to include Obama in the discussion of worst is laughable. Franklin Pierce, Calvin Coolidge, and James Buchanan have such a strong-hold on the bottom of Presidential rankings that its not even worth discussion.
For the comments of how scandal-driven the Obama administration has been, people need to realize the difference in the 24-hour news cycle now. Scandal feeds the press. Even when ones aren't there, or would have previously barely registered, they are now extended talking points. This isn't for anything other than publicity and attention. In my mind, some that are mentioned here are barely even scandals, but rather really good PR work being done on the right to make them talking points.
I fear that we'll likely never again have a "great" President. DC is in deadlock and likely getting worse. We've become a country were compromise is a dreaded word and seen as a weakness. The news cycle is so driven in destroying people and not caring for what's actually going on. I can't see anybody coming out politically that can overcome that. I think Obama actually stood the best chance that we'll see for quite a while. He was younger, charasmatic, and a great speaker.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Picking Sarah Palin sure didn't help much, either.
Actually, picking Sarah Palin gave McCain quite a bounce coming out of the GOP convention.
Until she started talking.
Actually, I think that her speech at the GOP convention helped McCain very much. He had actually trailed going into it. Obama had barely a blip of a bounce after announcing Biden, but it was enough to put him in the lead at the time. Palin's announcement and her speech at the convention really helped McCain.
It was McCain's campaign handlers (and McCain himself) that screwed the pooch.
Quote:
Had McCain stayed McCain, he would have won the election. It's that huge transformation that contradicted much of the things he stood for before getting nominated that did him in.
It was McCain being McCain (or very nearly the same as Barack Obama) that cost him the election.
Quote:
I liked the old McCain. The "new and improved McCain" after he was nominated? Not so much. The maverick disappeared.
So, that's why you voted for Obama?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
GWB inherited a $200+ Billion surplus when he took office. We were on track to pay off all debts within 10 years.
Assuming tech growth continued at the same rate, which was never going to happen.
Quote:
He left us completely in the gutter. $1.3 TRILLION dollar deficit...meaning we were SPEDNING $1.3 trillion more per year than we brought in from revenues. Housing market was crashed. Auto industry was a mess. Stock market was down to about 6K. Unemployment was the highest it had been in decades. Poverty had grown from 11% to near 15%. GDP was falling like a rock. Losing 750K jobs/month.
This is where I think most presidential discussions go off the rails.. I believe, like NFL coaches, they are given far too much credit for the good and far too much blame for the bad...
So can you briefly explain to me why, other than he was in office at the time, that the housing collapse should all be hung on W? I've seen plenty of evidence that the policies that led up to it started 2, if not 3, Presidents before him and was grown by each subsequent President despite warnings of an eventual collapse.. but he was sitting in the chair when it happened so it's all his fault? Or why the auto industry being in a mess was his fault? Or for that matter, what effect 9/11 had in all of it?
See you list a lot of interesting stats which are all largely based on the same event.. the housing and banking collapse. That led to the stock market dive, that led to the job loss, that led to the poverty increase, it also played a big part in the auto industry being about to fold....
In hindsight Bush's single biggest mistake was Iraq (which I will admit to having been in favor of at the time)... that put a ton of added stress on us economically and caused a lot of unnecessary dissension among the people.. I'm not saying thats the only thing he did wrong... but that's the big one. Other than that, he gets blamed for a lot of things that were going to happen in one form or another no matter who was sitting in the chair..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742 |
Quote:
Assuming tech growth continued at the same rate, which was never going to happen.
Tech growth has been enormous since Clinton left office.
Apple, Amazon and Netflix have all gone completely berserk since 2000. Smart phones, tablets, facebook, etc. The monetization of the internet really exploded post-2000. The profits and jobs have been far more substantial post-Clinton than during. In terms of users, time spent (ads) and actual e-commerce, the growth has been enormous.
Bush and Obama both got far more from the internet than Clinton did. The industry is much, much larger today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
And yet it is a piddle of growth compared to the growth of tech in the 90's
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,506 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Picking Sarah Palin sure didn't help much, either.
Actually, picking Sarah Palin gave McCain quite a bounce coming out of the GOP convention.
Until she started talking.
Had McCain stayed McCain, he would have won the election. It's that huge transformation that contradicted much of the things he stood for before getting nominated that did him in.
I liked the old McCain. The "new and improved McCain" after he was nominated? Not so much. The maverick disappeared.
I had to laugh when McCain was sold as some far right wing loon ..... when his whole career was about as centrist as could be.
When McCain ran against GW Bush, all I heard Democrats say was "If only McCain had won.h is a good man who always votes his conscience, no matter party consequences." Then, he runs for President, and he's 10 miles right of any US politician ever. 
As far as Romney ........ Obama could not have asked for a better opponent than him as far as helping his re-election chances. Romney wasn't right enough to excite the base at all, and did little t distinguish himself from bama. People figured that if the choice was Obama 1, or Obama 2, they might as well stick with the Obama they knew and liked, over the one they didn't, and didn't.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742 |
Quote:
And yet it is a piddle of growth compared to the growth of tech in the 90's
And the moment the 2nd internet user went online we grew 100% per minute.
In terms of boosting our national economy, it doesn't compare to the release of the Iphone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,426 |
Quote:
Then, he runs for President, and he's 10 miles right of any US politician ever.
2000 John McCain and 2008 John McCain are two very different people. If you can't see that, I'm not sure what you are looking at. McCain saw in 2000 that a centrist couldn't win in the new Reupblican party and made a decent jump to the right. It worked in getting the nomination and then killed him in the general.
[color:"green"] "World domination has encountered a momentary setback. Please talk amongst yourselves." Get Fuzzy[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
It worked in getting the nomination and then killed him in the general
That's what's bitten them the last couple times around. They throw red meat to their more rabid base, but get out way too far right and can't backpedal in time for the general.
Killed Romney's chances, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194 |
Quote:
Quote:
I liked the old McCain. The "new and improved McCain" after he was nominated? Not so much. The maverick disappeared.
So, that's why you voted for Obama?
When Palin started doing any campaigning, she let her true colors show and it turned any moderate voters off.
McCain was a great candidate until he gave up his maverick stance and began towing the party line. That's the problem with the current system. Any candidate of either party has to conform to what the bulk of the party policy is.
Which is why we never get a viable candidate. I know you are extremely conservative. And I have no issue with that. But the reality dictates that the people in the middle, those who have no party alliance control who wins and loses elections.
I voted for who I thought would cause the fewest deaths in Iraq. We had no business going in there in the first place. Bush and Cheney sold the war with fear to the American public. The donkeys followed suit because the people believed Bush and they didn't want to look weak and lose votes. Both parties hold blame in that.
PDR provided many links on this board showing the intel went both ways. that Iraq having WMD was not a slam dunk. I thought they cherry picked the intel and many of our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians would be killed. And that's exactly what happened.
I'm tired of our young men and women dying on foreign soil due to bad policy decisions. Because fear was perpetrated on the American people. Same goes with Vietnam. So the Bush administration decided to sub contract a lot of the war and try to fight a war on two fronts with an all volunteer army. I know plenty of former military who fully understood the folly of that.
So I wanted our troops out of Iraq. That was priority #1 to me. The moral, religious and conservative movement beyond that is secondary to me. Business was let roam free at one point in our nations history and that history shows exactly what happens when conservatism runs unchecked.
So you can rant and rave all you like, and you will.
But without moderate voters, you lose every time. As much as it may pain you, embrace it or lose. Your call. People like Limbaugh and Palin help kill the conservative call, not advance it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Who is the worst president ever? The current one.
Who is the second-worst president ever? The previous one.
Same as it ever was.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,096
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,096 |
...any time I hear "worst President ever..." I start looking for someone else to listen to.
It's been a habit of mine since high school.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Who is the worst president ever? The current one.
Who is the second-worst president ever? The previous one.
Same as it ever was.
Ain't that the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Is Obama the Worst President?
Yes, he is currently the worst President we have.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
He is the worst President as far as leadership in the history of the USA, hands down, numero uno.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Depends on what you define 'leadership' (there's many facets to it), but as far as modern day, Carter, Reagan, W. Bush and Obama would all be up there for me as far as sorely lacking it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Depends on what you define 'leadership' (there's many facets to it), but as far as modern day, Carter, Reagan, W. Bush and Obama would all be up there for me as far as sorely lacking it.
So then you liked Clinton... I suppose the adage is true that it's easy to lead when the economy is doing well.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
He is the worst President as far as leadership in the history of the USA, hands down, numero uno.
Don't worry. More people will agree with you once the southern border epidemic starts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Who is the worst president ever? The current one.
Who is the second-worst president ever? The previous one.
Same as it ever was.
Exactly.
The next guy had better watch out. The bigger social media gets the faster opinions become public and the quicker dimwits latch onto those opinions and stamp their feet.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194 |
Quote:
Don't worry. More people will agree with you once the southern border epidemic starts.
It started several decades ago. You're just late to the party.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Depends on what you define 'leadership' (there's many facets to it), but as far as modern day, Carter, Reagan, W. Bush and Obama would all be up there for me as far as sorely lacking it.
So then you liked Clinton... I suppose the adage is true that it's easy to lead when the economy is doing well.
I didn't put H.W. on my list, doesn't mean I like him.
No, I'm not a big Clinton fan. But I have wondered why conservatives dislike the guy so much. He's probably the most conservative president in modern American history.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
NRTU, just a general observation.
Since I posted the video link of the folks in Chicago complaining about Obama, I've noticed that not a single response since had anything to do the video and what the people in the video had to say.
I dare say that few of you that responded even watched it and heard their statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Is anarchy really "daring" the board to watch a video where several people complain that Barack Obama isn't doing anything to help the poor?
I feel like doing that thing where Jon Stewart stares into the camera in befuddlement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 75,194 |
I believe that PDR hit on a valid point. On one hand people portray him as an ultra liberal president who gives away everything. Then they point to a video showing he isn't showing favoritism to his home town and that people who felt he would give away everything to them are disappointed.
I did watch the video. I saw people complaining that Obama wasn't catering to Chicago and they were upset by that. When so many of our inner cities are having similar problems, if anything I think it's great that he isn't showing preferential treatment to Chicago.
Each city has a mayor and police force to deal with their problems. The citizens themselves must help the police force to take a stand and take back their neighborhoods. I can see how people who so deeply oppose Obama would be pointing the finger about showing cronyism and getting the federal government involved if the situation were different.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I believe that PDR hit on a valid point. On one hand people portray him as an ultra liberal president who gives away everything. Then they point to a video showing he isn't showing favoritism to his home town and that people who felt he would give away everything to them are disappointed.
I did watch the video. I saw people complaining that Obama wasn't catering to Chicago and they were upset by that. When so many of our inner cities are having similar problems, if anything I think it's great that he isn't showing preferential treatment to Chicago.
Each city has a mayor and police force to deal with their problems. The citizens themselves must help the police force to take a stand and take back their neighborhoods. I can see how people who so deeply oppose Obama would be pointing the finger about showing cronyism and getting the federal government involved if the situation were different.
Well, I don't see anything PDR writes and I'm not interested enough to care.
I don't say that he gives anyway everything. I'm not so naive to believe that ANYTHING is free. There is ALWAYS a cost.
And, to me, it doesn't sound like they want Obama to do everything for them. It seems to me that they don't want Obama to spend money on these folks that aren't even Americans and are violating our laws. Their argument is that if Obama is compelled to spend this money, he should be spending it on Americans. I don't like either argument, but I can accept theirs more than I can Obama's call for nearly $4 billion in handouts to these illegals. The old "my brother's keeper" argument doesn't hold water for me.
He's not showing preferential treatment to the inner cities because he feels that Democrats already have him as voters, no matter what they do. He's trying to get "new" voters. It's the correct thinking to believe that the Democrats need an new influx of poor wretches and that is the motivation.
Frankly, I think they're beginning to lose the hold that they've had on the black voting block that they've had for generations and they're trying to find the replacement voters in any way that they can.
You're naive to think that cities, particularly metropolitan areas, do not receive federal dollars to help compensate their budgets. Those dollars are getting siphoned off to pay for these poor illegal wretches. These folks see that for what it is. It doesn't matter if it's Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston or Los Angeles. It's happening in all metropolitan areas.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Is Obama the Worst President?
|
|
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
