are you happy with Obama's progress so far?

SVTContour said:
Really? And how exactly is Bush responsible for that? Who was it that pushed for mortgages to be given to people who shouldn't have them?



Oh and you are welcome for 0 terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11.
Click to expand...
Sub prime mortgages were under both Regan and Bush. Yes, no attacks, but thousands of american lives lossed in Iraq. Who caused that war? A little hint on his intials GWB.
 
SVTContour said:
Oh and you are welcome for 0 terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11.
Click to expand...



Well, 9/11 was not the first time WTC was attacked/bombed by Al Queda, the first was the garage bombing in 1993. So let's see if we can compare this...no terrorist attacks after 9/11--score one for W. No terrorist attacks after 2/26/93--score one for Clinton. Terrorist attacks before or =9/11...one black mark against W. Terrorist attacks before or =2/26/93--well, I guess that makes W. and Clinton equally good or equally bad presidents, since you established the "no attacks after the first one" criteria.



Actually I would give the nod to Clinton on that one, because his attack wasn't as bad, and he went longer without another one while he was president (7 years, 11 months, W. only went 7 years, 4 months). So right now Obama is ahead of Clinton. If he gets thru September without Al Queda attacking, that will make him a better President than Bush, right?
 
Happy with the egomaniac president? Not one bit. I'm watching the country that I served and fought for go to the dogs due to Obama the socialist. It will only turn around when he is gone or more people begin to wake up.....which is happening.
 
Legacy99 said:
Sub prime mortgages were under both Regan and Bush. Yes, no attacks, but thousands of american lives lossed in Iraq. Who caused that war? A little hint on his intials GWB.
Click to expand...



Less lives have been lost in Iraq than lost in the attacks of 9/11. GWB did prevent other attacks from happening here on U.S. soil, which I dont think Obama could have/would have done. BTW a democratic President whose initials are WJC had a chance to get Bin-Laden and didnt take it before he masterminded the 9/11 attacks. As for sub-primes under Regan and Bush that is almost funny, no actually that is funny. The subprimes began under Carter and was revived in full force under Clinton, Barney Frank, etc etc etc. Since we blame everything bad now on the previous administration of GWB,(who I agree made many mistakes) how can you blame subprime on anyone other than JC or WJC?



As for how do we like Obama's progress? Guess I'd rather be free from government control under Bush than where we are headed with Obama's socialism.



I dont mean to sound rude with my sentiments, I just disagree with you strongly, but am glad you at least have opinions and am sure you mean every bit as well as I do. Many dont care one way or another, those are who worry me.
 
mobenzowner said:
Less lives have been lost in Iraq than lost in the attacks of 9/11.
Click to expand...



That is just wrong. 4,325 killed as of last month.





mobenzowner said:
GWB did prevent other attacks from happening here on U.S. soil
Click to expand...



Prevent? Do you have any evidence of that? The only evidence I know of is that Al Qaeda only attacks (domestically) about once every 8 years, since they started in 1993. As far as I know there is no publically available evidence that attacks were prevented post-9/11, only that no attacks occurred. Perhaps none were attempted? Or was Bush simply as good as Clinton at preventing attacks (they both suffered one each)? Perhaps Clinton prevented just as many attacks that are hidden in the classified record, just as Bush/Cheney have suggested their "preventions" are.



I dunno, if I was President, and I had prevented attacks, I'd kinda want everybody to know about it, I'd want pictures of the body bags or the captured terrorists on every news outlet.
 
Setec Astronomy said:
That is just wrong. 4,325 killed as of last month.









Prevent? Do you have any evidence of that? The only evidence I know of is that Al Qaeda only attacks (domestically) about once every 8 years, since they started in 1993. As far as I know there is no publically available evidence that attacks were prevented post-9/11, only that no attacks occurred. Perhaps none were attempted? Or was Bush simply as good as Clinton at preventing attacks (they both suffered one each)? Perhaps Clinton prevented just as many attacks that are hidden in the classified record, just as Bush/Cheney have suggested their "preventions" are.



I dunno, if I was President, and I had prevented attacks, I'd kinda want everybody to know about it, I'd want pictures of the body bags or the captured terrorists on every news outlet.
Click to expand...



You are correct sir. There were 2993 deaths directly related to the attacks of 9/11. I was wrong on my intial numbers and man enough to admit it. As to prevention, the only evidence I have is that no further attacks took place, and reports are several attempted attacks were foiled. As for your statment that "Al Qaeda attacks (domestically) once about every 8 years",in my opinion is false. Al-Qaeda had several planned attacks, which they would have carried out had they been able. You are wrong about no public available evidence that attacks were foiled. There was much written about attempted attacks in Los Angeles, as well as shoe bomb polts by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and who could forget Jose Padilla and his plans to blow up apartment buildings. I have included a link from the whitehouse detailing(no pun intended ) these plots. CNN.com - White House lists 10 foiled attacks  - Feb 9, 2006

I know this data is from the Bush whitehouse and therefore higly disputable to many. I would have no problem with the statement had you said "successful attacks every 8 years", but that would have kinda made my point for me.

You could be right that Clinton could also have prevented attacks, I wont say he didnt.



Anyway, you have given me good advice before on this forum(car related, not political, jk.) and I hope we can just disagree on this one with no hard feelings.
 
No hard feelings. We're still in a war of ideology, and ideas are really hard to bomb. I'd feel a lot better about the whole thing if we had spent those 4,000+ lives hunting Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than our excursion into a redo of the first Gulf War, minus the WMD's, and our attempt at nation-building in a nation that's made up of 3 ethnic factions who hate each other and have never been governable save for the successful dictators there (today's news that the Shia have restrained themselves from sectarian retailiation notwithstanding).
 
If there is one thing this thread demonstrates, it's the extreme degree of polarization that's still present in our society. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground anymore, you're blue or you're red. I've voted for more Republican presidential candidates than I have Democrats, but to you red-staters, I'm still a pariah. We can't get anything done in Congress (generally speaking) because there isn't really any considered thought, mostly partisan politics. If you're a Democrat, that shouldn't mean that you think every Democratic idea is golden, any more than you should think that every Republican idea is crap. I guess I'm too old, I remember when more politicians than not were statesmen, instead of used car salesmen. Time to go off on the ice flow. And with that, I'm going to try to stay out of this thread, because the vitriol just makes me sick.
 
I hear the word "Socialist" in the same sentence as President Obama quite a bit. Would someone explain what motivation the President of the United States, and former professor of constitutional law would have to try to move this country towards socialism.
 
If it were up to me I would give a 72 hour warning and level any country that ends in "igan" and few along the way. I would then bring every soldier home, but the selected few in the protected hot spots. I would stop feeding every other country and baby sitting there *** and worry about ours. This country was built on freedom, now we are losing everything one small step at a time. Pretty soon I'll be taxed to take a ****. I'm done with this thread.
 
I would be happy "if" there was any progress. From my point of view we are just going backwards. Socialism (looks like sooner than later) and rampant inflation (can't possibly be stopped at this rate) are not my view of progress. I can't wait to pay more taxes on my income to pay for more entitlement programs. OBama is an excellent speaker and salesman......I will be interested in hearing how he sells all of this in another two years after we see the real "progress" from his actions. Of course that is a silly statement on my part since the liberal media will spin it until the American public buys it again....and again.
 
bufferbarry said:
If it were up to me I would give a 72 hour warning and level any country that ends in "igan" and few along the way. I would then bring every soldier home, but the selected few in the protected hot spots. I would stop feeding every other country and baby sitting there *** and worry about ours. This country was built on freedom, now we are losing everything one small step at a time. Pretty soon I'll be taxed to take a ****. I'm done with this thread.
Click to expand...



What is wrong with Michigan?:getdown
 
No, not at all. I worry for all you guys under 30. You are going to pay for all of it. Scottwax, I also remember Carter's years. It caused my sisters first home purchase to have an 18% mortgage rate. I also remember waiting on Tuesdays with my father to get gas in the longest lines and most fights in 2-5 hours. Yes, waiting to get gas for a car for 5 hours sometimes longer. Imagine what that would be like today.



Blaming the state of economy. GW does have some blame. All of them do. Don't forget he didn't have control of the House and Senate. Mortgage mess, most to Franks, Dodd, Reid, Fannie's former Johnson a few others. Don't forget W as well as Reagan inherited recessions. Reagan also had inherited 10%+ unemployment. Even though I disagree with the Air traffic Controller turnout, he gave our economya 20+ year gain, which allowed for tech and banking and manufacturing booms under Bush Sr. and Clinton. That greatly helped Clinton get the deficiet in the black for a period.



Attacks on U.S. property. Clinton had more. I am including Embassies that were attacked. Add that to the Cole and 1st WTC bombings. He hurt us in the trucking and manufacturing sectors just as much as Bush Sr. He went with NAFTA. He did do some good when he realized he had to come to the center and look out after our interests, especially if he wanted another term.



BTW, the body count didn't stop yet with the WTC. I colnd't find the link to the number of Firefighters, Police and Voluteers that have been diagnosed with a variety of diseases from the dust etc.. Let alone the people that were on the streets that fateful day.



I wanted to give O a chance but, he blew it. Appointing tax cheats. Especially, one that was part of monetary policies in the Fed. Sad day when students of economics laugh at your Sec. of Treas.

What happened to transparency?

Rushing 800 billion dollars in spending through without reading it, and taking 5 days to sign it anyway. Can't wait for those tax hikes.

Trying to rush a HR 3200 through without reading it, but take months to pick out a dog as one guy said. Try and brouse through some of that Bill. Can't understand most of it and what I can understand, WTH. Kids I went to college with were happy as hell when they were here and they got hurt. They had care immediately.



Sorry, I have to stop myself before I lose my mind and can't detail my truck tomorrow.



I am glad it is the Office and not the man I have to respect.



I am also glad we are safe here in the Greatest Nation on Earth so far.
 
Just one point.



If my neighbor wears shorts every day, and I wear pants, and his house catches on fire - it isn't necessarily because he wore shorts or I wore pants. That should make sense to some of you.
 
Picus said:
Just one point.



If my neighbor wears shorts every day, and I wear pants, and his house catches on fire - it isn't necessarily because he wore shorts or I wore pants. That should make sense to some of you.
Click to expand...



I think you've captured the whole thing in a nutshell.
 
Picus said:
Just one point.



If my neighbor wears shorts every day, and I wear pants, and his house catches on fire - it isn't necessarily because he wore shorts or I wore pants. That should make sense to some of you.
Click to expand...



Yep, lots of variables that may or may not have affected outcomes............
 
Obama's taught me smart habits that are leading to me living a more enjoyable life, no longer "encumbered" by the reality of my debts. I have school loans and a very limited income as a student, but rather than minimizing my debt and reducing my expenditures I actually went and leased a house and bought a couple cars this week. NOW... my future looks bright. My debts will work themselves out. Hahahaha
 
I like presidents that cut taxes without cutting spending and then pretend all is well but blame everything on someone else.
 
nailzer said:
Like getting Palin in as president? That should solve all our problems. :rofl
Click to expand...



Who said that? I know I didn't. I lean towards the libertarian side of conservatism so I'd be more apt to vote for someone like Newt Gingrich or JC Watts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top