Printable View
That for some reason just sounds more like wishful thinking than premonition, I guess I tend to wonder where someone is at in their life to wish for another persons failure.. no offense to you Mike. Even when I disagreed with Bush I certainly wished for success overseas and an uptick in our economy under his plan, it'd be nice for someone to figure these dilemas out even if the path isn't one i could foresee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
LOL missed the point again.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
Can you not see the handwriting on the wall. His approval ratings have dropped 20 points in 9 months. WHY? Dont tell me its because people WISH him to fail or WANT him to fail.
Its because people dont trust what he is doing. Unemployment is still climbing despite his promise it wouldnt. The economy is still struggling even though he said STIM 1 would rescue us. Healthcare is nowhere near done even though he said "BY SEPTEMBER " we would have a vote.
Everything he has promised has NOT BEEN DONE. Thats lack of confidence in your leaders, plain and simple.
QUOTE ME NOW
This time next year his approval ratings will be BELOW 45% as unemployment climbs and the economy drags on. ESPECIALLY if he gets his wish with healthcare
Im not wishing for his failure, i just know its coming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy
I see what you are saying, and there is some truth to that, but it wasnt all his fault.
It was false prosperity absolutely
Show me a president that maintained their approval rating for a year, it doesn't happen especially when you're starting at 70%. If 53% is lack of confidence (where Obama is at now) then what is the 32% that Bush had? Absolute disdain? As it was said before, you're not going to satisfy everyone and honestly, the only ratings that matter to me are the results of that election in November every 4 years. The pushback on health reform is reason enough for me not to care about public opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
Even if he was still at 70% im sure you'd be saying its his celebrity status and nothing to do with his presidency so this approval rating discussion is moot.
It's never going to be just one person's fault because that would be a dictatorship and I understand that. Just like it won't all just be Obama's fault. Our gov't is supposed to work on checks and balances, by definition not making it all one person's fault. Obama can't just make all the rules and laws alone—supposedly and based on how our gov't was set up. He has to go through a process that involves voters, cabinet, house senate, etc. In reality, I think the way receive information is the real issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
So you believe it is Congress's job to push their agenda no matter what their constituency says? That does sound a lot like the dems way of passing this healthcare bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I agree and disagree. First off, polls are all biased. If MSNBC does a poll, they will concentrate their poll in liberal areas. FOX does the opposite. They will poll primarily conservative areas. Secondly, going back to those polls, alot of people are saying they dont agree with his policies, but do approve of him. How is that even possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I agree. All politicians receive their info from biased staffers. Then, as you saw in the stimulus bill, they dont even read the legislation they are voting on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy
I believe the majority do not always know what is in their best interest, case and point the fact that there was similar pushback on segregation.. or for women to have the right to vote. I think when we look back 10 or 20 years from now at the current healthcare system people will wonder why we didnt do anything sooner.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
SO you believe that just because someone is in congress they are smarter than anyone else? You really do drink the kool-aid. Name just ONE thing the US Govt has not screwed up when it got its hands on it. When you realize that you cant come up with one, think out those same people deciding what kind of health coverage you are allowed to get for your family and yourself. THEY will decide what procedures you are allowed to get based on costs and what you contribute to society. Remember, this is the same administration that brought back the VA death book.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
Why do you say this? The English have nationalized healthcare and hate it. The same is true of the French and Germans. The same countries that have these nationalized healthcare systems are the ones that have their citizens that can afford it coming to the US for medical care.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
No one is doubting that we need to make some changed to healthcare as a whole, but dumping the best system in the world for one that doesnt work doesnt seem all that smart. It actually sounds pretty damn stupid if you ask me. They say they want to use competition to lower prices, yet none of their proposals will do anything to lower costs, if anything they will raise costs on all but the govt plan. Funny how that works huh. People that want a single payer system are writing these bills, They know they cant get one by calling it a single payer system so they are content in doing it more slowly.
How about expanding competition by allowing you to buy policies from across state borders? How about lowering prices with tort reform? How about ending the cost shifting policies by fighting medicare fraud and using that money to actually pay the real price of a medical procedure? These are all plans brought forward by republicans that have been killed without a vote by dems. The simple fact is that Dems want a nationalized, and eventually single payer, plan and will stop at nothing to get it.
BUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHHA I deserve the that award as much as obama did.
If we could go back to the MLK thing for a min. There is absolutely no way to compare Obama to MLK. First, MLK was about much more than just giving great speeches. MLK had nearly 10 years of being a civil rights activist before winning the NPP. He had staged many boycotts, marches, sit-ins. MLK was true leader and made may sacrifices for his beliefs. MLK was awarded the NPP not because of his great speeches but rather his hard work and sacrifices.
Brown vs. the Board of Education. I have a list of them if you really really want it. Obviously discrimination couldn't be handled on the state level, the fed had to step in.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
I guess I need to be more clear so you can't sidestep the question. Name 1 thing that Congress has not screwed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I'll bite. While MLK was a great leader and he did make many sacrifices, a lot of the events such as sit-ins etc were organized by others, who would bring King is as a guest speaker. For example, the Memphis sanitation workers strike wasn't organized/started by King himself, it had been brewing/going on for several weeks before King and his group were asked to join.Quote:
Originally Posted by mm2654
Obama spent 10 years as a community organizer, the type of person who would plan the events associated with Dr. King at a grass-roots level (and not fake grass roots like 9/12 etc). In addition to that, I remember the visits Obama made during his campaign to various countries, and also the visits he made during his first months in office. The Obama presidency is an end to the period of isolationism/unilateralism started by W. and the neocons. While we are still bogged down in wars, at least now we are gaining back the support of the allies Bush had alienated.
Personally I think he deserves the nobel prize just for saving us from having Sarah Palin as vice fucking president. :cheers:
Best post in this damn thread :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I answered the question, congress is just one facet of government, you still have the judicial and executive branch that has just as much authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Just like brown v. The 1964 civil rights act passed by congress was historical for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
BanginJimmy is asking about a government program, not a policy. There is a huge difference.
Also, the G.I. Bill, the Higher Education Act of 1965, there are a lot of them. The premise of the question asked by Bangin Jimmy is bullshit really, because what progressives see as success, conservatives will see as failure. The nature of centralized government programs is that there are always tradeoffs and downsides. That goes for any program. I don't think any program will ever succeed 100%, but that doesn't mean that we should just do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I was going to post a very similar reply. You can find shortcomings in any initiative especially from the government but at the end of the day the question is whether it meets the needs of the people it serves. Is the military able to defend this country, yes. Is every child able to attend school and receive an education, yes. Is the person on welfare able to put food on the table, yes. And when healthcare reform comes can the person who needs medical attention able to get it when they couldn't before, yes. If it meets the needs of the people then I cannot call it a failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
OMG, I can't control myself lol. Did you just call liberals PROGRESSIVES??? What a joke :lmfao:
Thought the same thing :lmfao:Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
How is that funny? I don't see the right aiming for any kind of progress, seems they are only interested in keeping up the status quo. Which is cool if you like crooked insurance companies and trust them with your health...Quote:
Originally Posted by fcman
he has brought more troops to afghan, sent more contractors too iraq, threatened iran, never closed gitmo. this is a BS publicity stunt dont fall for it people. thats like giving it to kim jong ill.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
This just in.
Washington, DC: - President watches football game and wins Heisman.
Because bureaucrats are much less crooked and more qualified to make those decisions for us :thinking: and the right has put forth alternatives to the current healthcare plan that have all been shot down, but I'm sure you've done plenty of research and know all about the alternatives that have been put forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Whats to fall for? How does the Nobel affect anything? How many people on this board can name all the recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize off the top of their heads without using Wikipedia?Quote:
Originally Posted by preferredduck
In the grand scheme of things, nobody follows/pays attention to the Nobel. Add a buck fifty to it and maybe it will get you a cup of coffee. The only reason the right is even concerned with this is because there are some who feel the need to make snotty comments every single time his name is mentioned.
In Obamas mind "crooked" means "out to make a profit"
Question mike, if McCain and Palin were in there instead what would b their approval rating by now?? Do u HONESTLY HONESTLY HONESTLY think we would b in a better situation as far as Healthcare, Economy, UNEMPLOYMENT etc etc IF they were in office?? Please think about it and give a SERIOUS no B.S answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
I will say we wouldnt have the threat of healthcare "reform", or cap and trade in congress right now. So yes, we would be in a better situation overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by 112480
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
O know you arent this damn stupid. I would expect this from someone as ignorant as Blender, but not you. As you will notice, I said congress in my reply to you. yet you still sidestep this. The Judicial and Executive branches are NOT part of the legislative branch.
You obviously never used the original GI Bill or VEAP. It was a disaster that was harder to use than just applying for other forms of financial aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
Started as a nice law, but it is quickly getting to be a bunch of BS, starting in 2003. Lower standards for minorities to apply loans, more lenient on paying back the loans, among many other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
[QUOTE=Total_Blender;38391550]there are a lot of them. [quote]
We can tell by how well the stimulus and "No Chold Left Behind" are working.
Really? If this is the case then it would logically say that anything that works if a conservative does it, would be called a failure by liberals. Little failures like the surge in Iraq come to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
There is always be trade-offs on an ideological standpoint, but something that works, works. Kinda like the failure of the surge in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
So you believe anything is better than nothing? That is a horrible way to live your life. How can you honestly say that we should try something that hasnt worked anywhere else it has been tried? Liberals like to say that Americans are conceited, yet this philosophy is FAR worse than anything done so far. They are saying "Yea, France fucked up socialized medicine, but we are Americans, it will work perfectly for us".Quote:
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
I did not read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned that the nominations were due by February? That means he was in office for only 11 days when the nomination was due.
Also, even though the NPP committee makes the final decision, the nomination actually has to be sent in by some other person who the committee selects to find nominees.
Is there grease money involved in this? I don't know.
I really don't see how socialized medicine has "failed" anywhere if the populations are healthier than we are. :screwy:
All the stuff you hear about wait times.... I'd rather wait than not get treatment at all.:screwy:
I'd trust a bureaucrat who doesn't care if I live or die over an insurance crook whose job it is to make sure that I die as cheaply as possible. :lmfao:
I'm still wondering what Obama done that was so great for him to receive this very prestigious award.
He defeated the neoconservative element in American politics that favors a belligerent foreign policy. Dick Cheyney, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin have been swept under the rug (at least when it comes to the world stage) for the time being, and its clear the rest of the civilized world does not wish their return. :goodjob:Quote:
Originally Posted by §treet_§peed
The prize is awarded by a 5 person committee from the Norwegian parliament, as specified in the will of Alfred Nobel. Its worth noting that this committee is currently composed of 3 delegates from the Labor Party (liberals) 1 from the Conservative Party, and 1 from the Progress party (right/libertarian). The mixed committee of 3 on the left and 2 on the right voted for Obama unanimously.
I didnt like MCcain either ill be totally honest. I thought Palin was too green but i liked what she had to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by 112480
Do i think we would be BETTER, yes.
Mccain would not have done a 800 billion dollar stimulus, he would have given tax cuts to small business and i think would have neglected to take over GM. IMO of course we will never know.
He would be doing SOME type of healthcare reform but not this soon and not on this magnitude.
Economy would have been slightly better imo due to reason 1
Unemployment would be slightly better due to reason 1
Honest answer, i dont like Obama or his policies, and i dont like all the republicans either. I think its time an Independent won
Approval ratings would not have been as high as Obamas to start off with , and i dont think it would have fallen much either. My point is Obama was in the 80s when he took office and hes 25-30 points below that and we havent even hit xmas yet
what policy was it exactly that he defeated?
Lets be fair, George W. Bush had approval ratings of 80+%. He stayed above 50+% most of his term which is pretty good in terms of past presidents.
Heres a nifty chart
http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-all.gif
http://online.wsj.com/media/info-presapp0605-bush2.gif
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...pp0605-31.html
Why isnt Bush given the same courtesy as obama? Isnt it only natural that a president who inherited a recession from clinton, weak foreign policies from clinton, a tragedy in 9/11 that only 1 other president had to deal with (Roosevelt with pearl harbor), Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Hurricane Katrina, would have an approval rating that went down over time?
But for Obamas approval to go down its because "its only natural it should fall, its totally ok"
But when Bushs approval fell it was because he was the antichrist. You guys cant even admit that people are NOT HAPPY with obamas policies
30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends). Thirty-four percent (34%) say the country is generally heading in the right direction.
-Rasmussen
Its dropped as much as 22 points on Gallup, and HC is now more popular than BO
http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vteckidd
The difference and why? About 7 years and 3 months. You want to compare a 2 term president's ratings to a 10 month president?
Whats interesting about that graph is, Bush's approval ratings were on a decline till 9/11.. at a time when it was deemed unpatriotic to not support the administration (I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with his approval) then the decline picks up right where it left off when his 2nd term started and continued downward until the end of the graph in 2008.
There is no excuse for bad leadership, and unfortunately Bush was a bad leader.. theres just no way around that and no graph is going to hide it.