Oh, those evil Conservatives.....

At least BO has his priorities in order:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...hy-obama-hasnt-returned-call-of-gulf-lawmaker

 

Why is it David that you can not call the man by his given title which is Mr President or even President Obama? You do recall that he was duley elected to that office dont you? It's simple common manners David or are you berefit of such things

 

When it comes to BO I guess I'm "berefit" of such things.

 

Yet if anyone had called President Bush in the same manner you would have been claiming that they were not true Americans etc, so I wonder what sort of American that makes you as you seem to gain great joy in trying to undermine not only the greatest office in the United States but the very fabric of elected goverment itself (rather Communist in fact)? I am sure that there are those who would call it dangerously close to Treason and down right Un-American (point of fact I am sure if it was a Republican President you would be the one doing the shouting)
Of course you will attack along the lines of what do I know about it been a simple European etc etc and that in fact you are a Patriot (also the last hiding place of the scoundrel) who only wishes to uphold the Constitution (which I belief support him as been your Elected President)
There are believe me David many who are sitting back and rubbing there hands with glee and joy at the way that you and other so called Americans are orchestrating the destruction of your own society from within without them having to lift a finger. And all you can do is blame everything on one man, how very sad

 

I miss the Criminal In Chief days. Using an acronym for Body Odor to refer to the president just seems so lack luster.

 

No, I wouldn't

No, I wouldn't

"what do you know about it been a simple European"

Patriot is your word, not mine

There are believe me David many who are sitting back and rubbing there hands with glee and joy at the way that you and other so called Americans are orchestrating the destruction of your own society from within without them having to lift a finger. And all you can do is blame everything on one man, how very sad[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

There is something wrong with exposing "the Obama" for what he really is? It would be irresponsible to do otherwise. He's a fraud, a liar & he's not capable of handling the office of President. He is leading us down a road of gov't control & diminished freedoms.

 

Hey folks. It's been a while but I feel compelled to address David here.

It has been obvious for some time David that you hate EVERYTHING about President Obama and will continue to rail against him. That's fine. You have that right as do all of us.
Perhaps you're afraid he will take away that right and you are free to believe that as well. I, for one, am not.

To me it seems you are trying to paint yourself as some champion of truth. Hey, that's fine as well but let me ask you this.
Where were you in EVERY other administration? Where were you wnen the WMD (that never turned up) got us involved so much deeper in Iraq for example? Did you rail against "the Bush", "the Cheney" or "the Condi"?

Now, do I think that President Obama has told nothing but the truth all along? Of course not David. It's politics and most are smart enough to know that NONE of them tell the truth all of the time.

One administrations "lies" or "lack of performance" is what puts the next administration in after all. This is what happened when President Obama took over. People were not happy with President Bush and A "President" McCain was not something they wanted. The voting polls showed this.

I have stated in the past that I think a healthy Republican party and a healthy Democratic party are a necessity. I have also stated how I would like to see MORE parties that actually stood a chance.

I also believe that the Republican party is doing itself no favors by constant attacks on our President and being "the party of no".
The Tea Party is a joke and like it or not they are often tied to the Republican party.
Nothing like seeing a rally of Tea Party folks. Aged white folks against socialism that collect Social Security. Want less government fine. Don't collect your check, don't drive on the roads and if your house starts on fire salvage what you can.

I know I rarely comment here anymore David. Well, the quality of posts has gone down so far why should I?
I will give you this much though (and have to give it to others as well - you all figure it out). At least your posting in a place where there ARE different viewpoints.

Now I wonder this. Do you spout about President Obama as much in the "real" world as you do here? I have to ask that because of what I see on a VERY regular basis at work.
Now, for the record, I DON'T talk politics at work.
I am surrounded by Conservatives/Republicans at work who for some reason just ASSUME I agree with them. I let them think so. I'm sure the fact that I am white and have worked all of my life influences their assumption.

I get emails from them way too often. I read and delete 99% of the time because it's nothing but garbage. Clever signs, bumper stickers etc. You know, clever things like "the Obama".

The other day I got one bringing up the tired old birther issue. I read it, fell asleep, woke up and deleted it.
One of the folks I work with is quite the Libertarian. I believe he hates President Obama as much as you but he's logical. His logic is that if there was a "birth" issue Hillary Clinton would have been all over it. I agree.

Now, the boss likes to spout anything he hears Rush say (yes I am subjected to this but can at least say I hear it) to anyone that walks in the door. Again, he bases his "sharing of knowledge" on "assumptions". To me this is not overly bright.
I wonder how many people walk out thinking "what an idiot". I see it their faces at times.

People like him only strengthen the Democratic party in the long run. After all if people agree with my boss they already did. If they don't or are borderline his "rants" make them look harder.
Not all people are stupid. Trash talk can backfire.

Okay, I really went on here but why not? Just some thoughts pouring out of my head and I am curious.

Responses are welcome and it doesn't have to be just David.

 

Well, let's see.....first of all, I have said numerous times that the "birther" issue is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned (so is Obama's religion...and I don't have a problem with gays) so to target me in a post & attempt to connect me with that is disingenuis at best.
What else? I will discuss politics in public when the situation is appropriate. We have a close group of friends we spend a lot of time with & politics does come up rather often. The group is pretty diverse so virtually every political slant is well represented. At work? Yes & no. Due to the nature of my work, govn't policy plays a big part so the ramifications are something that have to be addressed. Once again, both sides (and the middle) are well represented with the client's best interest in the fore. Work is just that work so there is no time to sit around & listen to the radio or to even discuss what someone said the day before. I think I've mentioned this before...I do enjoy chatting up people I encounter while in such places as standing in line, at a gas station, etc. People "on the street" talk about Rush, Hannity as well as their lib counterparts but I can't recall the last time any of these folks were brought up at work or at one of our gatherings. In fact, I still find it humorous when moen & tomc accuse me of being a Fox addict. I wish I has the time to sit around watching tv in the evening or the time to listen to the daytime radio shows but sadly, I do not.

As far as Obama, do I really have to do this again?
I believe he is a fraud, a liar & ill-suited to be President. The guy was a political novice who had never accomplished anything...never created a job, never met a payroll, never managed anything, but someone believed they could make him into a likable candidate. Can you honestly say this guy had the background to become President? No, it was the "message" and the delivery that he got folks to bite on, the fraud that he perpetrated on the public is criminal in my eyes.

 

Patriot is your word, not mine

What are you saying here David you are NOT A AMERICAN PATRIOT!!!

Can you honestly say this guy had the background to become President?

Well yes one can he got the votes more than any other candidate! and that David is what it takes to become President the simple will of the People or dont you believe that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have a right to pick a President ?

 

How much time do you spend coming up with these foolish statements? You make it seem so effortless.

 

Okay David. You answered a few questions. I kind of wonder about the religion one though as many times as you've brought up Reverned Wright in the past but lets ignore that shall we?

No you didn't David. Nor did I ask you to if you read it again. I think I pretty much made it clear for you (and others) in the first paragraph of my post. Wasn't like it was news here to anyone.

Then you explained further anyway.

Well, what is the "proper background" to become President? You said the birther stuff is garbage and I agree so in essence he met all the criteria but not YOUR criteria. David I believe you or I could be President. Or do we have to run a successful Wal Mart and meet payroll first?

Here was my real question for you of course David. What about preceding Presidents? Were they all just great guys that NEVER lied and ALWAYS had the best interests of our country at heart?
I certainly hope you realize that's not the case. We've had a string of bad Presidents IMHO. I suppose most of them were "qualified" for the job as well.
Did you question, expose or rail against any of them at any time? I have an enquiring mind. Please share with the class.

 

Clembo,

The problem with Obama is that he ran as the candidate who was supposed to be above the partisan politics so often found in Washington. He promised change from the behavior that we have come so accustomed to seeing from out political leaders. Do you see change or do you see business as usual from the White House?

Your other statements about past Presidents is completely subjective. While we can all agree that W. was terrible, the others are debatable. The democrats will love Clinton and the republicans will love Reagan. Regardless of their performance, I think we can all agree that everyone had much more experience than Obama.

 

Do I believe politicians lie? Do whatever it takes to get elected? Sure I do. The difference with Obama is one I've pointed out ad nauseum- he convinced the majority that he was different. No one voted for BO because they believed he had the skills or experience or was the best suited to be our President, they fell for the facade, the stories, the image but no one is willing to admit to it now. Strip away the "new kind of politician" (we know now that that was a sham) and what do we have left? A radical novice. An empty suit. Clembo, can you trully say that his lie about open debate on healthcare was ok? The "creation" of non-existent jobs in non-existent districts simply to make his stimulus appear successful? The promise not to hire lobbyists? The pledge to eliminate pork? Transparency? The underhanded deals necessary to pass his ego-driven healthcare? This latest controversy with Stesak & the job promise? Not to mention a worse economy, a worse jobs situation, a worse housing situation? And the industries he has taken over? Don't even get me started. The guy made tons of promises in order to get elected. Name one he's kept! We're a year & a half into this debacle and contrary to his promises, troops are still in the Middle East & Gitmo is still open and the Patriot Act is still in force. The deficit is spiraling out of control, the country is more divided than ever.
This is just what has happened under the BO admin. What's next? Bush tax cuts being allowed to expire? Additional taxes? VAT?
Even the liberal rhetoric has changed. It was famously "Bush, Bush, Bush" now even the Richard Cohens & Peggy Noonans of the world are starting to wake up...what about the rest of you?

 

Partisanship!?

 

What is that supposed to mean, hollow criticism because it is from me. I have been more fair to Obama than any Republican you will find. Check my record on this forum. However, it is a fact that he incorporated the idea of bi-partisanship in his campaign. In that regard, he has failed the people who voted for him. He has every right to blame the Republicans for the failure but it was his own inexperience that created the problem in the first place. If you promise in your campaign to be bi-partisan, the other political party will hear you and all they have to do to make you fail is refuse to work with you. It isn't selective sight, he should never have made that promise to begin with. You know it, I know it, and I am sure Obama knows it.

Your argument serves to make David's point more than your own. Given the text highlighted in red which are the problems that the current President is facing, wouldn't it be better if we had a President with unimpeachable experience especially relating to foreign policy.

Not only can I name someone who I think could do a better job and are more qualified than Obama, I can name two, and both are black: Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.

I respect President Obama and don't have a negative opinion of his performance in his first term so far. However, he has done nothing to earn my vote in the next election so far.

 

What is that supposed to mean, hollow criticism because it is from me. I have been more fair to Obama than any Republican you will find. Check my record on this forum. However, it is a fact that he incorporated the idea of bi-partisanship in his campaign.

You like pretend that Obama operates in a vacuum. All he has to do is want bipartisanship and *poof* it happens. No one other than complete idiots believe Obama could change the long, long standing practices of partisan politics in Washington in his first year. Are you really that naïve? Bipartisanship and changing the Washington culture has been the stated goal of every presidential candidate that has ever run for office in this country bar none. You see this as a broken promise, although you’d have to show me the proof he ever said “I Promise To Bring Bipartisanship to Washington”, I see it as a stated goal that I firmly believe he’d like to accomplish but face stiff opposition from…you guessed it, your party. Once you’ve cleaned your own house, come complain about how messy mine is and you might have some credibility on this issue.

In that regard, he has failed the people who voted for him. He has every right to blame the Republicans for the failure but it was his own inexperience that created the problem in the first place. If you promise in your campaign to be bi-partisan, the other political party will hear you and all they have to do to make you fail is refuse to work with you. It isn't selective sight, he should never have made that promise to begin with. You know it, I know it, and I am sure Obama knows it.

So you’re saying that if Obama stood up during the election and said, “I will never work with the opposition no matter what”, he would have been less naive? This sort of reminds me of the woman who is walking down the street and gets pulled into an alley and raped and when the police show up at the hospital the first thing they ask is, “What were you doing in the alley in the first place?” This is the strangest twist of logic I have ever seen and I usually don’t talk in absolute terms. You complete exonerate the Republicans for their part and blame Obama for even trying to work with them. You know partisanship isn’t just in the halls of congress? You demonstrate it very clearly every time you post stuff like this.

Your argument serves to make David's point more than your own. Given the text highlighted in red which are the problems that the current President is facing, wouldn't it be better if we had a President with unimpeachable experience especially relating to foreign policy.

I really don’t have any idea what David’s points are. All I know is that he hasn’t made a valid one yet so I stopped reading them. He adds nothing of consequence to the conversation and perhaps you could stand on your own and leave him out of it.
I have already stated that it would have been nice if Obama had served longer but in many ways, that would have just have given him the same Washington insider label every politician gets labeled with. I’m glad that he wasn’t a beltway insider because if he had been, that would be the complaint you would be leveling right now instead of harping on his lack of experience. Criticism for the sake of criticism is all you really have.
As little actual foreign policy experience as he came to the table with, he has still managed to build way better relationships with our allies and significantly improved the rest of the world’s opinion of this country in his first year in office. To be fair, after 8 years of Bush and Cheney, there really was only one direction we could have gone anyway. Obama is smarter than anyone else that was on either side of the political process during the last election. Is he politically savvy? His detractors believe he is when he is making them look like fools but he suddenly morphs into some kind of unqualified novice when the same people want to criticize him. The truth is probably someplace in the middle.

Not only can I name someone who I think could do a better job and are more qualified than Obama, I can name two, and both are black: Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.

Thanks for answering and I have a lot of respect for both of those non-candidates but the truth is that they didn’t step up and run probably due to their associations with the Bush Administration. Powell has been almost 100% completely supportive of Obama’s policies and Condi has been all but invisible since she walked away from the biggest foreign policy debacle this country has ever faced.

I respect President Obama and don't have a negative opinion of his performance in his first term so far. However, he has done nothing to earn my vote in the next election so far.

I'm faily certain that he didn’t get your vote in the last election. You most likely voted for grandpa McCain and empty-headed Palin because they waved enough flags in your face. What a complete disaster they would have been if their election had come to fuition. We will probably never know how bad things would have been but think of McCain/Palin losing as the only silver lining in this economic catastrophe brought to us by the failed policies and ideologies of the Republican Party that they would most certainly have continued if we had allowed them to. The mind reels at the thought!

 

Actualy David I took lessons from you, after all you do it continualy, you take snippets of a conversation and try to twist them to suit your agenda. Talk about the politicians been liars some of them could take lessons from you.
You say
"No one voted for BO because they believed he had the skills or experience or was the best suited to be our President, they fell for the facade"

Now how the hell do you know why people voted for him? you have tried blaming him for the finacial disater before he even got into office, on the 1st day of his administration you were complaining that the crisis was not over, you have accused him of going to gut your armed forces (still not happend) you lied when you said he promised unemployment woudnt go above a certain percentage, you complained about his proposed policies regarding the oil companies then complained that he wasnt doing anything regarding the spill
It goes on and on ! so he has made some mistakes and gone back on some promises, care to show me just one single politican who has never done that? Go on David Just one.
I agree with Lehigh that both Condi and Powell would have made better not only candidates but actual Presidents than President Obama (I have allways said I woudnt have voted for him) But and here is the thing David THEY NEVER STOOD He DID AND HE WON by a big margin

The man is the President of the United States of America David do you quite grasp that? try giving his office the respect that it deserves, go on slip into a darkend room and whisper PRESIDENT OBAMA IS MY PRESIDENT We wont tell on you

 

This would be a lot easier if you would learn how to use the quote feature! See the sentence in red. I am not, but many of the people that voted for Obama are and they did believe his rhetoric about changing "politics as usual". I don't know if it was an explicit promise, but I do know that it was a big part of his campaign. Are you disputing that?

Of course he shouldn't state publicly that he is against bi-partisanship. On the other hand, it seems unethical to make bi-partisinship one of the cornerstones of your campaign when you know damn well you can't deliver. Maybe his best course of action would have been to say nothing. Your analogy of a woman being raped is ludicrous and inflammatory. Spin, nothing more. When did I exonerate the Republicans for being partisan? I don't like the way politics works at all, but if I was in the game, I would be wise enough to know how the game is played.

There is nothing wrong with giving credit to David for making the statement that Obama is not qualified to be President. Furthermore, I don't believe what David believes. He may be more inexperienced than the rest but he is qualified in my opinion. However, your rebuttal gave credibility to his statement. Stop trying to spin stupid **** professor.

BTW, being smart is not enough to make a good President. Jimmy Carter was one of the most intelligent men to ever hold the office. How did he do?

When you asked for names, you never qualifed the request with the condition that they threw their hat in the ring. Furthermore, Bush screwed both of them so badly that neither would really have a shot at even winning the Republican Primary much less the general election.

[Moen1305]I'm faily certain that he didn’t get your vote in the last election. You most likely voted for grandpa McCain and empty-headed Palin because they waved enough flags in your face. What a complete disaster they would have been if their election had come to fuition. We will probably never know how bad things would have been but think of McCain/Palin losing as the only silver lining in this economic catastrophe brought to us by the failed policies and ideologies of the Republican Party that they would most certainly have continued if we had allowed them to. The mind reels at the thought! [/QUOTE]

I did vote for McCain and stand behind that vote. I thought he was the best candidate. When he announced Palin as his running mate, I knew he was in trouble. I had no idea how dumb she was at the time, and only thought adding her to the ticket was a transparent political move to obtain votes from women since Obama was going to sweep the black vote.

I have no idea what disaster you are referring to about McCain. If he had won, what specifically did you envision him doing that would be so disastrous?

 

Well, typically when someone campaigns for an office (or seeks any type of job) they tell you about themselves- what they've accomplished, past experience, etc in addition to what their plans are for the future. Am I right so far?
Obama couldn't sell us on his record, could he? What record? In his time spent in the Senate he was known more for is propensity to vote "present" on a measure rather than the normal, expected yeah or nay. Remember that fact? How does one establish a record operating that way? And that's not a rhetorical question...you can try to come up with a legitimate answer. The balance of his time was spent campaigning. Right or wrong?
Obama did spent his time on the campaign trail trying to convince people he was a "new kind of politician". Apparently it worked, he got elected.Well for the past year and a half, you & dr moen & clembo and other BO supporters have justified misstep after misstep, lie after lie by recycling the old "every politician does it" defense. If BO is so new & improved, why oh why do we always go back to this?
You know, you keep going back to the 8% unemployment thing. So, I can't find an internet link that suits you. Can you deny that he used the recommendation from Christine Roemer as evidence that his stimulus was the solution? Furthermore, can you deny that Roemer then became a top White House advisor. Connect the dot, you fool, connect the dots. Roemer wrote it, BO used the information to support his plan, Roemer got a key White House job as a result. Not rocket science.
Now, what about the other lies & "issues" I've mentioned in other posts?
The lie about jobs created in districts that do not exist?
Bribing members of Congress to get their vote on healthcare?
His lie about debating healthcare in the open?
His promise to eliminate pork?
His promise to not have lobbyists in the WH?
Or this latest Watergate-type scandal involving Stesak & the promise of a job in return for not running against his candidate Arlen Specter and the further step of drawing Bill Clinton into the fray?

See, no one here ever wants to address these issues. When I asked dr moen to address these issues, he packs his ball & runs home. I responded to Clembo's post but when I brought up these questions, he goes oddly quiet.
You want me to admit BO is the president? Really? Of course he his, get real- when have I ever denied it? How about the rest of you admitting that this experiment hasn't worked, won't work. Conditions started to turn downwards when the dems took control of Congress and now that they have the WH it's even worse.
BO hasn't accomplished a single thing since he got elected, not a single thing. And every important indicator has gotten worse under his administration. I would of thought a few of you would have gotten wise when this rookie admitted conditions were worse than he had thought soon after his election.