Posted by FriendO on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 1:07 AM:
The old ones were getting pretty long, so here's a fresh one! I don't even have a link to all the terrible stuff he's done today, so think of this as "free jazz" ranting, a headstart on a fun-filled weekend on the Speak Out forums!
I'll start: "Obama is horrible." And go.
Replies (37)
All I can think of at this late hour is ... Obama fooled me, and because I'm not normally easily fooled, I resent that!
Sometimes maybe I just need to believe that a Fairy Tale could come true?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 2:12 AM
He fooled millions Gurusmon! I am proud to say he never fooled me. I knew he would be in way over his head. He has NEVER done anything much less accomplish anything in his VERY short Illinois political career nor does he have any experience with actual work! He fooled millions of Woman and college sudents whom I believe got him elected. None of us would have ever heard of him if not for that Democratic convention during Bush's second run for President. Sure he talks a good talk when it comes to campaining however, that does not qualify someone to be President. In my opinion he is a joke and will waste 4 years of this Countries existance. I have confidence in the American people in that they will not make the same mistake again. As bad as I hate to see time pass quickly, I wish this was January 2013!
He MUST go folks along with his entire Administration.
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 5:43 AM
Obama is one part boogie man / one part Jesus Christ.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 7:43 AM
I like Obama. Sure he has done some things I haven't liked, but I'm still glad I voted for him. No matter what he was a better choice than McCain and that crazy lady.
-- Posted by Heartland Atheist on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 8:37 AM
I'm voting for Raymond E. Norwine next time around. Repeal all the liquor taxes and a free comfortable lawn chair for everybody!
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 8:55 AM
It's all the Republicans fault, because Obama was a better choice than McCain and his bad choice.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 9:36 AM
concerned4all: I kind of agree with you on that. If McCain had picked either Romney or Huckebee, we might be saying President McCain now. Picking Palin was an attempt to get the Hillary's women votes. That's all it was, period. McCain will never admit it, but no one is going to tell me has doesn't regret that selection everyday he wakes up. "Country First" sure didn't fit in with his choice for VP.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 9:53 AM
That crazy lady would be a lot better than what we have now.
-- Posted by 44044 on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 10:38 AM
Crazy and dumb lady, eh? It takes one to know one.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 11:31 AM
Look - another quote from grandfather.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 12:28 PM
Greywolf: I agreee 100%!!!
-- Posted by agape on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 3:09 PM
GREY ... I have to suspect that the 'circumstances' were right for Obama, for various reasons ... from the primaries ... in which some women and some Democrats just couldn't vote for Hillary ... to the conclusion, where many Republicans just did not like McCain, or did not like Palin.
Add to those things the large minority votes ... and the independents who are generally known to "punish the party in power -- whether Republican or Democrat -- when they believe any of those things are too far out of balance." (borrowed this from an op-ed because it says it better than I could)
And then ... Whoever came up with 'Hope and Change' should have been (and may have been) hugely rewarded.
And yes, howdy ... I might have voted otherwise if the Republican party had chosen a different running mate for the aging and possibly unwell candidate. Actually ... Palin wasn't McCain's first, second, and possibly even third choice. Yes, it was quite apparently a party attempt to try to draw in the female vote ... IMO, of course.
Absolutely, James ... "... we give presidents too much credit or blame ..." but is just sort of a case of 'The buck stops here,' though, so ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 6:13 PM
McCain picked Palen in an attempt to impress the Cadillac Man. "See I am not about an all white man's only - good ole boy's club either" Maybe the effect of his head swelling during the democrat's crossing over to vote against G.H.W.B. in the primaries.
The Hope and Change was just a clever reincarnation of Clinton's "Time for/need change, man from Hope" crap.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 9:41 PM
Lordy, Old J. ... I'm speechless!
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 10:53 PM
Seemed funny to me how people said Palin was unqualified for the number 2 job, but we never heard that Obama was unqualified for the number 1 job. To me the number one job was where we needed some experience, but apparently not to the millions that voted Obama in.
-- Posted by captainjack on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 11:32 PM
Captian, You just said in a few words what editorial writers would say in three columns of newsprint. I am envious.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 11:49 PM
McCain had my vote, until he choose Palin...
-- Posted by futile_rant on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 4:38 AM
Oh there were several candidates folks but most people can't see beyond the corrupt and powerful
two party system. Too many people do not want to educate themselves any further than Republicans and Democrats! Frankly I would love to go back to square one. Abolish the Federal Government as we now know it and return to being a Country of States that are sovereign and that are not held hostage by a corrupt bunch of power hungry politicians who seem to think they are above the rest of us. JMO
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 6:53 AM
"I'll start: "Obama is horrible." And go." "He MUST go"
-----------
Apparently the purpose of this is another patriotic attempt to collect derogatory opinions and comments on the President of the United States.
The main theme this time seems to center on how the President "fooled" everybody, and how his "lack of experience" is crippling our continued growth as a nation.
-------------
This entire concept of "experience" has been skewed totally out of proportion. In fact no first term president has ever had "presidential experience." What I looked for in a candidate is intelligence, a willingness to listen to both advisors and detractors, optimism and a sense of humor, an even temperament, a stable personality, and the ability to be realistic. Several presidents in my adult lifetime have had these traits, and had varying levels and types of experience prior to being elected.
President Kennedy was in the House for a few years and was also elected as a first term Senator, with no experience running a business and "never met a payroll".
President Eisenhower had no business or industrial experience, but knew what the risks were. Actually his only experience other that the military was as an academic, president of Columbia University.
The principal determination of a candidate having the right "experience" is made by the voters on election day. And the majority of Americans are not so easily fooled. The president leads the administration, he is not the single voice of government, nor is he a dictator. I do not believe that any president has the ability to drastically alter the landscape of American society or it's economic system. Definitely nowhere near the degree, that some President Obama detractors claim he is intent on doing.
President Obama's willingness to work with others is what I consider one of his finer qualities. Taking the health care bill as an example, it provides new coverage for millions of Americans and reduces overall expenditures. My position is that the bill that was passed was not as good as it could have been. It was too complex, could have been less expensive (but is still cheaper than doing nothing) and could have had a clear public option. They way this could have been done would have been for the Republicans to work with the administration to craft a common sense bill that ignored extremist desires on both the left and right. As it turned out the president had to accept some less desirable provisions from Democrats, in order to secure passage of the bill. Had a bipartisan coalition written the final bill, it could have been improved. Sadly the more extreme conservative viewpoint prevailed within the Republican party and no collaboration was possible, since the party moved in lockstep to frustrate and obstruct the desires of the majority of Americans.
In this case the President demonstrated a high level of competence in getting the bill passed, but it could have been better, if the conservatives had placed the good of the American people before their desire to block any sort of Democratic party achievement.
To paraphrase President Reagan, "Conservatism is not the solution, it's the problem.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:03 AM
I don't know which is more sad, someone who was fooled into voting for Obama or someone who is proud they did, oh wait, now I know.
-- Posted by Alt Ctrl Del on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM
"I'll start: "Obama is horrible." And go." "He MUST go"
-----------
Apparently the purpose of this is another patriotic attempt to collect derogatory opinions and comments on the President of the United States.
The main theme this time seems to center on how the President "fooled" everybody, and how his "lack of experience" is crippling our continued growth as a nation.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:03 AM
Try keeping up!
You might want to check the reason this thread was posted.... and the author. LOL
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 10:40 AM
Posted by GREYWOLF on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 6:53 AM
You're right about the two-party system followers ... How did that ever come about, anyway? Not sure about total abolishment of Fed Govt, but do believe it could be 'reduced' by at least 1/2 ... starting at the top of the 'food chain' ... with no real major losses to the states or the majority of citizens.
common ... "... attempt to collect derogatory opinions and comments on the President ..." Probably not ... seems more like tongue-in-cheek humor from the 'author' of the thread.
"President Obama's willingness to work with others is what I consider one of his finer qualities." That's what I thought was going to happen when he was running for president ... haven't seen much of it since the inauguration, actually. Will admit that he did possibly try to 'work with others' ... but only if they agreed with him and his Democrat players. Doesn't really seem, to me, to be much of a 'plays well with others' type of person.
So you believe that passing an expensive bad bill is better than no bill ... despite the majority of Americans being against it? All to 'satisfy' a promise of health care ... regardless of the cost or invasiveness of it?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 5:53 PM
Now days the term "workin with" seldom means being employed at the same place but rather trying to manipulate someone or teaming up against others.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 7:58 PM
"...which is more sad, someone who was fooled into voting for Obama or someone who is proud they did..."
Fortunately, no one I know was "fooled into" voting for President Obama, and I have no regrets about it. Others may have different opinions, luckily they are and continue to be in the minority.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...where was that trait when the international community offered to help with the Gulf oil spill but he refused to suspend the Jones Act so they could..."
There are now international vessels participating in the cleanup. That is in addition to the 5000+ US boats. Had international help been accepted prematurely, there would have been fewer US equipment hired. Possibly you can imagine the outcry that would have caused for US boats to sit idle while foreign boats worked. The President did the right thing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...check the reason this thread was posted.... and the author..."
All the information available is in the opening paragraph which includes "a link to all the terrible stuff he's done today, so think of this as "free jazz" ranting."
There was no clarification regarding "the terrible stuff he's done today." But the "ranting" that followed was self-explanatory.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"So you believe that passing an expensive bad bill is better than no bill ... despite the majority of Americans being against it? All to 'satisfy' a promise of health care ... regardless of the cost or invasiveness of it?
The option was never passing an expensive bad bill, but it could have been better and was better than doing nothing.
What I said was: Taking the health care bill as an example, it provides new coverage for millions of Americans and reduces overall expenditures. My position is that the bill that was passed was not as good as it could have been. It was too complex, could have been less expensive (but is still cheaper than doing nothing) and could have had a clear public option.
Also it was never "to 'satisfy' a promise of health care" but to fulfill the need to provide better health care for all Americans particularly those millions that have no coverage. If you think health care for all who need it is bad, that can be your choice.
The majority of Americans were and are in favor of all major components of the plan. Only when Republicans inappropriately applied the moniker "Obamacare" (which in itself has no meaning and was coined specifically to disparage the plan) was there any poll that showed slightly more than half of those polled (not all citizens) were against the Republican interpretation of the plan.
Do not forget that just over a year ago the Republican party had the opportunity to improve the plan but chose not to because their conservative wing drove them away. It appears that the idea of developing a bi-partisan plan that would help Americans with health care, came in behind their desire to thwart any manner of success for the Democratic administration.
Still it all boils down to "Conservatism is not the solution, it's the problem."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 8:44 PM
Still boils down to Common getting his quotes mixed up. "Government"
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 8:59 PM
Obama is the victim of the religion of Socialism and Islam. Read his books...He loves the Marxist philosophy.
Foreign Prime Minister Gheit on Nile Television...said that, in confidence, Obama told him that he was a Muslim," says Geller, "and that after he straightened out domestic issues would show the Muslim world how to handle Israel.
To quote Pamela Geller: "If you look at the man's record, it's shocking," she laments. "[Especially] when you review how he declared an end to the -- quote, unquote -- 'war on terror'...how he floated the idea that he would talk to the violent, genocidal Hamas, that he insisted and recruited for Muslims in his administration and created an actual new department that reported to Hillary Clinton for the Muslim 'ummah' [the whole Arab world]."
Geller goes on to say that Obama's embrace of Islam shows his hatred toward Israel and effectively abandons the Holy Land, surrounded by its enemies, to fight its own battles.
Do not forget Obama is half-white, more than 40% Arab, and less than 10% Black. Follow his behavior closely and the facts will speak for themselves.
He pretends to be Black (his plan to manipulate and use the Black community ala Sharpton and Jackson), married Black to enhance that image, and pretends to be Christian. (the jury is still out on that one. re above claim to Egyptian Prime Minister). He supported and promote Rev. Wrights radicalism and bigotry for more than 20 years.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
In 1997, Obama voted in the Illinois Senate against SB 230, a bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. In the US Senate, Obama has consistently voted to expand embryonic stem cell research. He has voted against requiring minors who get out-of-state abortions to notify their parents. The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-choice voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238-239 Aug 1, 2008.
Senator Obama consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, "Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all."
On "too liberal," 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama "very well," 21 percent say "well," 21 percent say "not too well," and 17 percent say "not well at all." In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about "a socialist," 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama "very well," 22 percent say "well," 15 percent say "not too well," and 25 percent say "not well at all."
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think "socialist" is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, "Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all."
On "too liberal," 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama "very well," 21 percent say "well," 21 percent say "not too well," and 17 percent say "not well at all." In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about "a socialist," 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama "very well," 22 percent say "well," 15 percent say "not too well," and 25 percent say "not well at all."
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think "socialist" is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, "Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all."
On "too liberal," 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama "very well," 21 percent say "well," 21 percent say "not too well," and 17 percent say "not well at all." In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about "a socialist," 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama "very well," 22 percent say "well," 15 percent say "not too well," and 25 percent say "not well at all."
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think "socialist" is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
Former Marxist student, John C. Drew says "I met the young Barack Obama during the fall of 1980. I got a chance to see how his mind worked from my conversations with him. He was already an ardent Marxist socialist by the time he was a sophomore at Occidental College. I would be curious to know how and why his beliefs changed...if, indeed, they have changed".
I am amused when people say Obama is for more liberal than they thought when they voted for him.Duh.
His radical ideology combined with his incompetence in my view has made him the most dangerous and evil Potus in the history of our country. WAKE UP AMERICA!!! LOOK WHO HE HAS SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH!!!!
-- Posted by Balmy on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:23 PM
Spaniard,
To quote Reagan..."There you go again", we will not hold your ignorance against you. Calling someone crazy and dumb because you disagree with them only shows your inability to debate the facts. When it comes to leadership and management, I submit to you that Obama is not worthy to be a scab on Palin's posterior and I am not a leading supporter of Palin.
-- Posted by Balmy on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:31 PM
Common,
Thought maybe you could get this by yourself... but I guess not.
If you really want to know where this thread came from, go to the Thread titled "Barrack Obama - The Great Jobs Killer.
Next go to Friday July 9th to where there was a post between 11:23pm and 11:39pm by one of your lib buds Friendo, which has disappeared now (apparantently did not pass muster for the Missourian), but you can read it quoted in Balmy's post at 12;54am, the 10th. Friendo after ranting for a while let his emotions get the best of him and he posted this dumb thread.
Now, other than draw you a picture, which I cannot do on here, I don't know how to help you.
This thread was posted by one of your libs.
Keep on with the gibberish.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:34 PM
Sadly the gibberish began on Sat, Jul 10, 2010, at 1:09 AM
and continued intermittantly through Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 9:34 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 10:25 PM
Common, You have great skill and quit wit in posting your ideas. Have you ever considered becoming a comedian?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 10:41 PM
Wiff,
Yeah that one. Common was all concerned about who posted this dastardly thread, and I was only trying to help him out, and it seemed to upset him.
Oh well, can't win em all I guess.
Funny this thread was posted by another lib, don't you think?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 11:09 PM
Wiff,
Did you catch any fish?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 11, 2010, at 11:55 PM
"Fortunately, no one I know was "fooled into" voting for President Obama ..."
Actually ... I'm rather glad you don't know me. Imagine being naive enough to believe that a president would tighten-up/downsize the federal government, bring home the troops, work with the other party, bring transparency into Washington, etc. Dumb, huh?
The 'Mea Culpa' phrase keeps running through my mind ... even though my one single vote wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome.
I just keep hoping that at some point in time, those who agree with things like the health care bill will find themselves paying the most for it. Naughty of me, isn't it?
Somehow some of you seem to keep trying to convince others that the Democrats are more willing to be bi-partisan than the Republicans. They probably are not.
Didn't FriendO kind of sort of apologize for his post the other night? ~ducking~
Very, very good, WHY. Just askin' ... Hasn't Obama enlarged the government since his oath of office ... starting with aides for himself and the First Lady? Think he was just practicing for later maybe ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:37 AM
Mom,
Heck, one vote didn't make any difference, and what is probably a burr under the saddle of some of these OW's on here is that their vote did not count for him either. ☻ ☻ ☻ ☻
If FriendO apologized I must have missed it.
I been trying to stay off this thread, seeing as it is a liberal forum.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:53 AM
Mom.
Cannot help this. I believe voting for Obama was a Mea Maxima Culpa!! ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 12:56 AM
I thought of that, Wheels ... but since it was only one vote ... Still, it might be considered a most grievous one.
I sort of get a kick out of FriendO ... he doesn't seem quite as radical or ... ummm ... I dunno ... Maybe this is it: He may be one of the few liberals on these forums who could actually ... darn, I'm usually not at a loss for words. Maybe it's time to go to bed or something?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 1:06 AM
Democratic governors facing grim budget choices, lingering unemployment and angry voters are pointing a finger at their colleagues in Democratic-controlled Washington to explain this year's toxic political climate.
Few will fault President Barack Obama directly for their party's plight heading into the fall midterm elections, but the chief executives gathered here for the National Governors Association (NGA) meeting believe the Congress and White House have made an already difficult year worse. ...
"I think the bottom line is they're not seeing the jobs that should have came from it," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, explaining why voters in his state were dissatisfied with the massive spending bill. "Are we just protecting government or are we really stimulating the economy? Maybe it's too early too tell."
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter said expectations for the immediate impact of bill were set too high.
"They may have oversold the job creation part of it," observed Ritter, whose 2006 election heralded a Democratic resurgence in the Mountain West and whose decision not to run for re-election this year has illustrated the party's declining fortunes in the region.
"They're not satisfied with the pace of job recovery that they expected when the Recovery Act was passed," he said of his state's citizens. "Whether the President of the United States inherited this situation or not, he's now owning it. For the federal government, this administration and the Congress to have not delivered [jobs] more quickly has become the problem."
-- Posted by blogbudsman on Mon, Jul 12, 2010, at 6:46 AM
Menu
The old ones were getting pretty long, so here's a fresh one! I don't even have a link to all the terrible stuff he's done today, so think of this as "free jazz" ranting, a headstart on a fun-filled weekend on the Speak Out forums!
I'll start: "Obama is horrible." And go.
Replies (37)