DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Is Obama the Worst President?

Quote:

---

Printing Money... You mean the thing that was supposed to destroy the budget and economy?

That great threat is now the reason for job growth, reduced deficits and flat spending. Interesting.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Printing Money... You mean the thing that was supposed to destroy the budget and economy?

That great threat is now the reason for job growth, reduced deficits and flat spending. Interesting.

---

Wow. If you think it's been good for the u.s., hang onto your ass when inflation comes around. And it's coming...........you can see it already.

But, anyway, if you think printing more money is a good thing, have at it.

Econ 101: the more of something there is, the less it's worth.

---

You mean, we couldn't settle our national debt with this?

Quote:

---

The vote was 225-201.

---

Quote:

---

JC

House authorizes lawsuit against Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/politics/gop-obama-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Snippet:

Quote:

---

The vote was 225-201.

---

---

Quote:

---

This isn't going to go well for the Republicans.

---

Quote:

---

So you guys expected this to just go unnoticed and without action? It's already been neglected for quite some time. Seriously?

Okay, you democrats always make the most sense

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This isn't going to go well for the Republicans.

---

Care to explain? Is it because they're "racist"? Last I heard, there are a lot of democrats claiming impeachment. Whether it be a scam or not, it's a fact. GOP doesn't even seem to want to push for impeachment, perhaps just a stripping of Obama's pen and paper.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This isn't going to go well for the Republicans.

---

Care to explain? Is it because they're "racist"? Last I heard, there are a lot of democrats claiming impeachment. Whether it be a scam or not, it's a fact. GOP doesn't even seem to want to push for impeachment, perhaps just a stripping of Obama's pen and paper.

---

Quote:

---

What talks of impeachment are you referring about bro? Boehner has dismissed any of that action. It's, as I said, the democrats who are talking and claiming it...

Funny the GOP is "sewage water" and the dems are a "hot mess". This is exactly why Hilary Clinton, another moronic lying democrat, is going to get elected. I'm not sure I can handle another program being passed that makes a free loafers life easier, at the expense of a hard worker.

But, this has been coming. To not expect any sort of action, IMO, is just plain ole' fashion sillyness. That would pave the way for continued abuse of executive orders. Why not just do away with congress, the senate and etc then? Hell why not just do away with it all and be it a dictatorship? Why not, huh?

---

Quote:

---

So which is it?

---

Quote:

---

GOP's got as much case to impeach Obama as the Dems had to recall Scott Walker.

...and BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI holds no water.

---

Quote:

---

JC

House authorizes lawsuit against Obama:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/30/politics/gop-obama-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Snippet:

Quote:

---

The vote was 225-201.

---

---

Quote:

---

As an American I am proud the house is considering this their #1 priority given there are no other real priorities that they need to focus on.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This isn't going to go well for the Republicans.

---

Care to explain? Is it because they're "racist"? Last I heard, there are a lot of democrats claiming impeachment. Whether it be a scam or not, it's a fact. GOP doesn't even seem to want to push for impeachment, perhaps just a stripping of Obama's pen and paper.

---

And making him make collect calls (Ay carumba!) to his fundraising buddies instead of jetting all over the country. Maybe Obama can use some of the fundraising money to buy some clothes. It's silly for the emperor to walk around naked.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure I can handle another program being passed that makes a free loafers life easier, at the expense of a hard worker.

---

Quote:

---

But, this has been coming. To not expect any sort of action, IMO, is just plain ole' fashion sillyness. That would pave the way for continued abuse of executive orders. Why not just do away with congress, the senate and etc then? Hell why not just do away with it all and be it a dictatorship? Why not, huh?

---

Quote:

---

GOP's got as much case to impeach Obama as the Dems had to recall Scott Walker.

...and BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI holds no water.

---

Quote:

---

Benghazi
Kenya
Commie
Socialist
Not a us citizen
Hates America
Talking head for corporations(which is a contradiction of being a commie)
Not a leader

Did I miss anything?

---

Of course, you missed some, Swish.

I caught a few in my previous post that you may have missed.

As I see it, Barack Hussein Obama is pretty much "Everyman" to any who oppose who he is, what he is, and who/what he's proclaimed himself to be/believe. It may (or may not) have to do with his ethnicity, but that's immaterial to most of these threads. Why do I say that? Because of this website's history of being hyper-partisan... even when the presidency was occupied by the whitest of men in our past. PoliticoDawgs have been goin' at each other since I joined the site, yo....

"Ruthless Domestic Tyrant who is viewed as ineffective/weak by Our Enemies" is my favorite 'mash-up' from the list I compiled. (And checkit- I was "in my cups" that night... or I'd have been able to come up with at least 6-8 more labels to add to that list...



From my own unofficial count, Obama's been called at least 20 pejorative 'labels' by the talking heads at FOX News since he became a serious candidate in 2007.... some of them directly contradictory in nature.

note: If any of you think you can use my characterization of FOX news to paint me as a "diehard Liberal" in these threads, I'll verbally, rhetorically and categorically take your pants down [by the numbers] in front of all our DT friends, one point at a time. I view any and all posters "at the extreme" in the same light. I simply used FOX as an easy example in this specific instance, because the shoe fits like a custom-made Johnston & Murphy Oxford. For the record, I absolutely despise MSNBC for the exact same reasons... and I can't tolerate their talking heads any better. Same goes for all the partisan websites that get linked in many of these threads.



___________________________

Some day, I think I'll draw up one of those "madlib" graphics using all the labels he's been slapped with, just so many of our American friends can sit at home and indulge themselves. Libs AND cons can play.... the end results will be "fun for all ages, 6 - 96 !!!"

The first paragraph could actually look something like this:

" Barry Sowetoro Hussein O'blame-o, is the 44th and current (and first, ever) Divider-In-Chief of the Doomed States Of Amurika, and is the first Almost-American to hold the office. Oblunder is a "graduate" of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as first Affirmative Action- elected president of the Harvard Law Review. Obummer was conceived in a back alley in Nairobi, Kenya, and born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961... exactly one week after the end of Ramadan. He is the son of a radical Muslim extremist Kenyan National father and anti-establishment radical hippie mother of mostly English ancestry."

___________________
___________________

Dawgs: This is a satirical example of why I can't take many of these arguments in EE very seriously. Some of the crap you guys drop in (as you are supporting your posts) actually weaken the thrust of your arguments... and I howl my ass off every time you play out that game. It's true that a few salient talking points get covered in each of these discussions, but my intuition regarding Human Nature tells me that most of these talks are fueled by a pre-existent bias, and I never have to read very far into the thread before I find that bias. I also freely acknowledge that I'm not immune to my own biases... which is why I'm reluctant to weigh in with gusto on subjects as convoluted and arcane as current politics.

From my own individual POV, these threads rarely allow a person from "one side" to "drop insight" on a person of "the other side" ...because as Humans, we are all subject to a certain degree of tribalism. It's encoded in our DNA, influenced by family identity, confirmed and reinforced by friendship/relationships , and reinforced by life experiences. We almost can't help ourselves. If you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this question:

"Would I ever be arguing this political issue with A Fellow Dawg, if I wasn't already Cleveland Browns fan first?"

Your 'tribalism' has forced you to "choose sides" between yourselves and the very folks who initially came together with you to support a common cause.'

I think I'm finally starting to make my point.

__________________________

When it comes to Obama, R vs. D, Con vs. Prog, and any other such poll/thread, there's not really much I can add... because I just don't see either side of the current divide as being any more right than its opposite.

Progs see Cons as holding back the pace of progress.
Cons see Progs as misinformed idealists, with no common sense.

How far have we've descended from the level of Cambridge University's debate between Wm. F. Buckley Jr. and James Baldwin in 1965, on the subject of America's prosperity on the backs of Blacks? How far have we slipped from the level of academic acumen of the Nixon/Kennedy debates? What prevents us 'everyday Americans' from that level of conceptual, philosophical and ideological debate... that we can no longer hear even the best points of those with whom we disagree?

I've given up, for the most part. For me, a question that reads: "Is Obama The Worst President?" is about the same as asking: "Is Marzipan/ice cream/tiramisu the best dessert?" Or- who's the hottest (non-relevant) celebrity babe: Anna Nicole Smith (in her prime) or Kim Kardashian?"

For what it's worth: Each President we've ever had lived through his own triumphs, setbacks, gains, losses and set of challenges that were unique to his own time in office.

As such, they cannot be rated against each other, because daily life is fluid and ever-changing.... and every President does the best that he can, armed with the info he has, and the mindset that guides him.

We can agree with him on certain individual points. We can disagree on others. But what we can't do, is cast a definitive voice on the effectiveness of his presidency in real time.

It's why I said (in a post on another site) that neither Pres 42 or Pres 44 can be accurately judged for at least 2 more presidential terms of service. Until we begin to see the outcome of their choices, we have only our emotions to frame our opinions.... and emotions are never data.


Daily opinions about a standing president are moot, compared to how said president is regarded in the perspective of time. In that light, I believe that we're no better equipped to assess Obama's effectiveness than we are President Bush's.

We're simply too close to the 'day-to-day' to yet know- in either case.

.02

Quote:

---

I think that Congress suing the President (the office, more than the person) over taking powers that are not his is long overdue.

The President has to live within the Constitutional definition of his powers. He is the Executive, That means that he carries out the laws of the land, as passed by the Congress, approved by the Executive, and upheld, when challenged, by the Judicial branch.

The Executive does not get to make changes to laws on his own. The Executive actually does not get to decide what laws to enforce, and which to ignore. He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and part and parcel of that is maintaining the powers of the office within the Constitutional limits.

The Legislature makes laws.
The Judiciary determines if they are in accord with the Constitution,
The Executive carries out those laws.

However, Obama, Bush, Clinton, and so on, have taken powers to themselves that the Constitution does not allow for. Neither party has challenged the application of such assumed powers, because they don't want to limit those powers when they gain the office back. However, this is probably one of the best things the Congress could do in today's political world. If their suit is upheld, then the President would be forced back into his ascribed powers, which would force the office of the President to work with Congress in a more bipartisan manner. The President who does not do so will see himself portrayed as an ineffective president, because he will get nothing done. So would the Congress who refuses to work together.

I see this suit as a good thing, as long as a positive ruling applies to the office, and to any future President of any party.

---

Quote:

---

As we all know lawsuits can be fought for years. So in the end, this will have zero impact on anything as long as Obama is still president.

---

Quote:

---

It's a political stunt by the GOP which will most certainly backfire. Already the Dems have received millions in campaign donations since this has been threatened and it will only increase since it was approved by the GOP strictly along party lines.

---

Quote:

---

Even if the GOP has noble reasoning for such a lawsuit, which I really don't believe they do, it's perceived as a political stunt by even some of their own constituents. The GOP really needs to consult better political advisors before taking such actions. Because this one is and will explode in their face.

---

Quote:

---

You're 100% correct. The president doesn't get to arbitrarily enforce the laws that he likes and not enforce the ones that he doesn't - but he's made it clear that's exactly what he intends to do.

Not only that, his executive branch has repeatedly obstructed inquiries into alleged wrongdoing by his administration (that 'most transparent administration' stuff was just words).

He is actually required by law to submit a budget. He doesn't. Even one that he did couldn't muster a single vote in his party controlled Senate. It was never intended to pass. The country has been operating on his whims in spending (via baseline budget increases and continuing resolutions) for the entirety of his presidency.

If he tries to grant amnesty, he will be in violation of the law and should actually be tried - although it will never happen in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think that Congress suing the President (the office, more than the person) over taking powers that are not his is long overdue.

The President has to live within the Constitutional definition of his powers. He is the Executive, That means that he carries out the laws of the land, as passed by the Congress, approved by the Executive, and upheld, when challenged, by the Judicial branch.

The Executive does not get to make changes to laws on his own. The Executive actually does not get to decide what laws to enforce, and which to ignore. He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, and part and parcel of that is maintaining the powers of the office within the Constitutional limits.

The Legislature makes laws.
The Judiciary determines if they are in accord with the Constitution,
The Executive carries out those laws.

However, Obama, Bush, Clinton, and so on, have taken powers to themselves that the Constitution does not allow for. Neither party has challenged the application of such assumed powers, because they don't want to limit those powers when they gain the office back. However, this is probably one of the best things the Congress could do in today's political world. If their suit is upheld, then the President would be forced back into his ascribed powers, which would force the office of the President to work with Congress in a more bipartisan manner. The President who does not do so will see himself portrayed as an ineffective president, because he will get nothing done. So would the Congress who refuses to work together.

I see this suit as a good thing, as long as a positive ruling applies to the office, and to any future President of any party.

---

You're 100% correct. The president doesn't get to arbitrarily enforce the laws that he likes and not enforce the ones that he doesn't - but he's made it clear that's exactly what he intends to do.

Not only that, his executive branch has repeatedly obstructed inquiries into alleged wrongdoing by his administration (that 'most transparent administration' stuff was just words).

He is actually required by law to submit a budget. He doesn't. Even one that he did couldn't muster a single vote in his party controlled Senate. It was never intended to pass. The country has been operating on his whims in spending (via baseline budget increases and continuing resolutions) for the entirety of his presidency.

If he tries to grant amnesty, he will be in violation of the law and should actually be tried - although it will never happen in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

---

Quote:

---

Wow. If you think it's been good for the u.s., hang onto your ass when inflation comes around. And it's coming...........you can see it already.

But, anyway, if you think printing more money is a good thing, have at it.

---

I won't predict where inflation will go. Too many factors, private and public. I monitor CEO conference calls of the companies I trust enough to invest in. Although, I will say, it probably can't stay as low it has been the last six years

We wouldn't have a currency if we didn't print it (digital, paper, coin, whatever). So, printing is necessary. Yes, it can get out of hand. The Fed's quantitative easing is winding down. From $600 billion mortgage backed securities a month in 2008 to $25 billion in Treasuries this month. It is a lot of money, but it all expires and hopefully it will be over soon. Time will tell.

Quote:

---

[He first black president? Obama. The soon to be first female president? Clinton, a dem.

Who do you guys have? Old white guys, still arguing about gay marriage, abortions, and religion.

Another landslide victory. That's not a good thing. But it's the reality.

---

Quote:

---

I do understand the points you make however I see an opposite reaction that could easily come about.

In actuality, congress has a much lower approval rating than Obama. Much of the nation sees a total stalemate within the congress and views them as complete obstructionists in allowing any measurements of our government from moving forward.

I don't believe the pubic as a whole as seeing this as strictly an illegal immigration move. But rather a move to further stalemate anything from moving forward on the part of our government. Just an extension of stopping any movement within our government.

I'm firmly against illegal immigration. I want our laws to be followed and fully implemented in stopping illegal immigration. I certainly disapprove on the Dems stand on the issue.

But perception is the reality among voters. Unless the GOP can convince the nation this is their motivation entirely concerning such a lawsuit, I see it as a huge loss for them. And from what I've heard, it's far more about some of the Obamacare mandates than anything. And the ability to stop him from using executive orders that concern far more things than immigration.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

[He first black president? Obama. The soon to be first female president? Clinton, a dem.

Who do you guys have? Old white guys, still arguing about gay marriage, abortions, and religion.

Another landslide victory. That's not a good thing. But it's the reality.

---

Ummm, what if the Republicans nominate Rubio in 2016? The first Latino President.

---

Quote:

---

Let's not pretend that other President before him haven't done similar things though. Both parties have tried to expand the power of the President while they hold the office, and have been afraid to challenge it when they don't, because they want their guy to be able to take advantage of all of the new powers when it's "their turn".

---