PDA

View Full Version : Which one will have done more damage to the country in the end?



doom&gloom
01-06-10, 02:00 PM
Pick your poison. By the end of his term, will it have been Obama, or will it be Bush?

Ghent12
01-14-10, 07:55 PM
I think it depends on whether President Obama has a second term or not. He certainly has a great deal of momentum, but he's busily pushing us off the cliff much harder than former President Bush was. That's saying quite a lot, given the degree to which Bush was destroying us.

Slimprofits
01-18-10, 01:23 PM
It absolutely depends on whether Obama has a second term or not.

The Republicans are a stronger opposition party than the Dems.

cindykimlisa
01-18-10, 10:21 PM
Pick your poison. By the end of his term, will it have been Obama, or will it be Bush?

A hundred years from now people will put Bush 2 in the category with Andrew Jackson, Grant and Nixon and maybe Carter. They will put OBam in the category with Lincoln, Kennedy and maybe FDR.

OBam can only do worse if another country drops a nuke on us.

In my opinion I do not see how anyone can do worse than Bush and I voted for him. WMD/Iraq/the market crash/the economy depression/9/11/New Orleans/tax breaks for the rich/housing crisis/lack of regulatory supervision by the exectutive branch/Gas went to $4.00 a gallon/Bush appointed Greenspan and bubblemania in 2004 - Thats a pretty good start I think. Do you really think Obam can top that?

Cindy

jtabeb
01-19-10, 12:57 AM
A hundred years from now people will put OBam in the category with Lincoln, Kennedy ...





Both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated, I don't think that Obama wants that kind of "legacy".

For the record, his economic policies have managed to be far, FAR worse than GWB, and THAT'S saying something.

Well at least according to:

Simon Johnson
Michael Hudson
Joe Stiglitz
William K. Black

You know, the only reputable economic policy folks that have a clue. That ain't good (when the people that actually have any brains say you should go one way and you turn around and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction).

Wonder if Larry Summers can tell us how much the Harvard Endowment lost in '08-'09, or if Geithner can tell us how to file a 1040 EZ?

No doubt, he inherited a terrible economic situation. But to then turn around and score an "own Goal" on the economic policy front, well, that's gonna hurt.

What were Obama's latest approval ratings again? (Even Better, what is the Slope of the Decline in his approval ratings? That looks like a 6th order polynomial decline in my book)

You can ride the "reform train" into town all you want, but if you fail to deliver, it can take you home just as easily.

cindykimlisa
01-19-10, 02:05 AM
Both Lincoln and Kennedy were assassinated, I don't think that Obama wants that kind of "legacy".

For the record, his economic policies have managed to be far, FAR worse than GWB, and THAT'S saying something.

Well at least according to:

Simon Johnson
Michael Hudson
Joe Stiglitz
William K. Black

You know, the only reputable economic policy folks that have a clue. That ain't good (when the people that actually have any brains say you should go one way and you turn around and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction).

Wonder if Larry Summers can tell us how much the Harvard Endowment lost in '08-'09, or if Geithner can tell us how to file a 1040 EZ?

No doubt, he inherited a terrible economic situation. But to then turn around and score an "own Goal" on the economic policy front, well, that's gonna hurt.

What were Obama's latest approval ratings again? (Even Better, what is the Slope of the Decline in his approval ratings? That looks like a 6th order polynomial decline in my book)

You can ride the "reform train" into town all you want, but if you fail to deliver, it can take you home just as easily.

When bush marched us off to Iraq we were as close to anarchy as I have witnessed in my life and when Bush was on the way out we were as close to melt down in the US economy as I have seen in my life.

Bush has nearly destroyed the country: His failed policies are still doing us in. When Bush came in Clinton had a surplus. Obam aint gonna come close to Bush in the end.

Greenspan attacks Bush on fiscal role

By Edmund L. Andrews and David E. Sanger

Published: Sunday, September 16, 2007

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> writePost(); </SCRIPT>
<NYT_TEXT>WASHINGTON — Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir is harshly critical of President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress for abandoning their party's principles on spending and deficits.
In the 500-page book, "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Bush's first two Treasury secretaries, Paul O'Neill and John Snow, as essentially powerless.
Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," wrote Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican."
"They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose" in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.



Words from the master of syntax

Cindy

ThePythonicCow
01-19-10, 02:53 AM
Cindy, jtabeb:

You two are just arguing "He sucks worse. No, he sucks worse."

You're both right :eek:.

The rot goes far deeper than any President can change. No one who was actually going to the right thing would be allowed anywhere near the White House anymore.

ThePythonicCow
01-19-10, 04:24 AM
You're both right :eek:.
Matt Taibbi says this better than I did, in his blog on Jan 4, 2010 at Fannie, Freddie, and the New Red and Blue (http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/04/fannie-freddie-and-the-new-red-and-blue/). Here's an excerpt; the whole thing is a good read.
For what we’ve learned in the last few years as one scandal after another spilled onto the front pages is that the bubble economies of the last two decades were not merely monstrous Ponzi schemes that destroyed trillions in wealth while making a small handful of people rich. They were also a profound expression of the fundamentally criminal nature of our political system, in which state power/largess and the private pursuit of (mostly short-term) profit were brilliantly fused in a kind of ongoing theft scheme that sought to instant-cannibalize all the wealth America had stored up during its postwar glory, in the process keeping politicians in office and bankers in beach homes while continually moving the increasingly inevitable disaster to the future.

That is a terrible story and it is also sort of a taboo story, since we don’t really have a system of media now that is willing or even able to digest that dark and complicated truth. Instead, our media — which has always been at best an inadvertent accomplice to these messes — is basically set up to take every revelation about the underlying truth and split it down the middle, feeding half to one side of the political spectrum and one half to the other, where the actual point is then burned up in the useless smoke of a blame game.

The essentially complicit nature of the two ruling political parties was in this way covered up for decades, as the crimes of the Democrats were greedily consumed as entertainment by the Limbaugh crowd while the crimes of the Bushies became hot-selling t-shirts and bumper stickers for the Air America listenership. The abiding mutual hatred the red/blue groups shared consistently prevented any kind of collective realization about the structure of the overall scheme.

What worries me is that we’re now reverting to the same old pattern with the financial crisis story. We’re starting to see fault lines develop, where one side blames the government while another side blames Wall Street for the messes of the last two decades.
(A tip of the hat to Jim Willie, CB for noticing this in his Golden Jackass newsletter. Emphasis mine.)

Chomsky
01-19-10, 08:40 AM
No hat tip to me? (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13744) :)

ThePythonicCow
01-19-10, 08:48 AM
No hat tip to me? (http://itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13744) :)
Oh dear. Now I am reminded why so many authors end their list of Acknowledgements with an apology for all those they missed :).

<table><tbody><tr><td>
http://www.tohaveandtohold.com.au/Assets/images/Etching_Designs/60.gif</td></tr><tr><td align="center">
A tip of the hat to a true gentleman.</td></tr></tbody></table>

jtabeb
01-19-10, 10:10 AM
Are you SUPPORTING the Obama Administration's Economic Policies? (Cause it seems like you are).

If so, I think that would place you in a minority of ONE (at least among the Itulip Readership). Even the Big Cheese here (EJ) has a none-too-nice opionion of them.

c1ue
01-19-10, 02:12 PM
Greenspan was first appointed by Reagan, but served for 20 years.

This means 5 years of Reagan, 8 years of Clinton, 7 years of Bush.

Hard to lay Greenspan on Bush given the 4 terms before him. If anything, Clinton can be blamed since Clinton had a theoretical opposing party affiliation to a Republican appointee and 2 shots to remove Greenspan.

Of course in reality we all now know that all 3 of these Presidents as well as Greenspan were serving the same master(s).

To me, though, Obama clearly is the worst.

Not because he's a Democrat.

Because he had the means (Presidency), the emergency (financial meltdown), the Congress (Democrat), the platform (Change), and the popular vote - and did nothing. Worse than nothing, he extended and pretended the very policies and behavior he had campaigned against.

Bush did exactly what he promised: cheap populism, Joe Six Pack foresight, Doing Something against terrorism.

What has Obama promised vs. accomplished thus far?

Even McCain could not possibly have done worse if for no other reason than Congressional deadlock would have killed much, if not all the legislation which is passing under Obama.

The history books will focus on Obama being the first African American president. The people who really understand history will write off Obama as an ineffectual smooth talker.

We can only Hope that this will change.

Slimprofits
01-19-10, 05:00 PM
good points by c1ue

cindykimlisa
01-19-10, 07:38 PM
Are you SUPPORTING the Obama Administration's Economic Policies? (Cause it seems like you are).

If so, I think that would place you in a minority of ONE (at least among the Itulip Readership). Even the Big Cheese here (EJ) has a none-too-nice opionion of them.

Not in my post thus far - Ive been answering the original question

I have been trying to say who will be the worst in General - Bush hands down,

I have been trying to say "why" using some details.

Now about supporting the OBam economic policy - what is the economic policy Of OBam as stated on the record. Does he personally have a stated economic policy that I can read with you that we both could critique. If so, I'll read it and comment on it then.

Cindy

Ghent12
01-19-10, 07:58 PM
Not in my post thus far - Ive been answering the original question

I have been trying to say who will be the worst in General - Bush hands down,
Would your opinion change under any of the following circumstances?
1) We are pushed as close to anarchy under President Obama.
2) We are pushed as far into the financial abyss under President Obama.
3) We are pushed further into those types of chaos under President Obama.

Because that's part of this thread too. Predicting what might happen under our Hoper-In-Chief.

jtabeb
01-19-10, 08:12 PM
what is the economic policy Of OBam as stated on the record. Does he personally have a stated economic policy that I can read with you that we both could critique. If so, I'll read it and comment on it then.

Cindy

Do you get paid for doing this or are you just a volunteer?;)

Careful, if you keep assimilating to the group and re-directing discussion, and then playing coy on positions, people might suspect that Lalla is correct.


"cindy" is probably ONE OF THEM.

You could tune-up your "maintaining a hidden agenda"
Skills a bit. (Just sayin')

cindykimlisa
01-19-10, 11:13 PM
Would your opinion change under any of the following circumstances?
1) We are pushed as close to anarchy under President Obama.
2) We are pushed as far into the financial abyss under President Obama.
3) We are pushed further into those types of chaos under President Obama.

Because that's part of this thread too. Predicting what might happen under our Hoper-In-Chief.

Good Questions

Answers
1) maybe- depends on what else happens
2)That has already happend - so no at this time but may depends on what else happens and how far Bern takes us, My gut is we are really already in poom and things to the masses will seem better by 2013. Itulip charts and graphs will prove otherwise and predict otherwise.
3)Yes - that would change my opinion by and of itself.

My prediction has always been if you read my post - It is not going to be as bad for the masses and me under Obam as it got under Bush the last four years of his office in particular.

For the record I voted for Bush twice and Obam 0 - His kind of change scared the hell out of me. You might be surprised to know I expect I will vote repub next time as long as they can find someone better than Mccain who I voted for this time.

Cindy

Jay
01-19-10, 11:48 PM
Pick your poison. By the end of his term, will it have been Obama, or will it be Bush?
Both, they serve the same master and carry out the same agenda.

cindykimlisa
01-20-10, 12:48 AM
Do you get paid for doing this or are you just a volunteer?;)

Careful, if you keep assimilating to the group and re-directing discussion, and then playing coy on positions, people might suspect that Lalla is correct.



You could tune-up your "maintaining a hidden agenda"
Skills a bit. (Just sayin')


To this "and re-directing discussion, and then playing coy on positions," I say hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaha you must be kidding - that is your mastery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You totally redirect by asking "Are you SUPPORTING the Obama Administration's Economic Policies? (Cause it seems like you are)." when if fact I am only talking about bush.

Then when I call you on what is the policy you refer to you redirect again and act coy.

Get with the program man - look in the mirror! You are the master of what you say. Bush sucked - get it - thats not about Obama and his economic policy.

Cindy

cindykimlisa
01-20-10, 12:52 AM
To this "and re-directing discussion, and then playing coy on positions," I say hahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahaha you must be kidding - that is your mastery!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You totally redirect by asking "Are you SUPPORTING the Obama Administration's Economic Policies? (Cause it seems like you are)." when if fact I am only talking about bush.

Then when I call you on what is the policy you refer to you redirect again and act coy.

Get with the program man - look in the mirror! You are the master of what you say. Bush sucked - get it - thats not about Obama and his economic policy.

Cindy


For the record if anybody thinks I am being coy or devious about my position on OBAm. This is it. I generally dont like him and his politics. I'll have a lot more to say about his economic policy in 2013.
Cindy

jtabeb
01-20-10, 02:12 AM
Bush sucked - get it - thats not about Obama and his economic policy.

Cindy

I voted for "O", Didn't vote for Bush (not even once), Gave money to "O"'s campaign and a similar amount to "RP".

Synergy is doing what works, no matter which side of the isle the idea starts out on.

Dogma is continuing to use something that has proven to be invalid, which has failed, and continues to fail... and then claiming that it "works".

Intelligence is finding a solution that has worked, and is likely to work, and using it (as long as it CONTINUES to work).

Stupidity is the opposite of the above.

Me no like dogma, dogs yes, dogma, no.

Yes I get it, question is, do you? (Seems the voters in Mass, are getting it too.) ;)

jtabeb
01-20-10, 02:19 AM
I'll have a lot more to say about his economic policy in 2013.
Cindy

Why wait?

Not enough background on the issues?
Not enough time to evaluate the record?
Not qualified to make an opinion? (everyone on Itulip has an opinion, and I doubt the first two as well esp. in your case)

Which leads me back to why wait?

Don't you think you have an important voice to add to the discussion? (Esp. since the discussion we have now, HOPEFULLY, will play a part in framing the debate in 2012).

How bout this, what fiscal and economic policies of the Obama administration do you support and which ones do you not? (Good start right? We all want to express a view on what's good and what needs to be worked on.)

I'll share first, Okay?
I don't support TBTF, nor public backstops of financial institutions, though I DO support deposit insurance and the chance for folks to voluntarily move their retirement assets to safe(er) retirement products (stabilization of the Public's balance sheet GOOD, Crony Capitalism and TBTF BAD, Bonuses for the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, ALSO BAD).
I don't support fiscal policies that maintain bloated distressed assets (on the shoulders of the American Taxpayer) Dollar Devaluation, Unemployment, Tax increases those all come out of hide for the middle class.
I don't support a lack Debt reduction Esp. in light of the above.
I DO support the artist formerly know as "the public option" for the health care grammy.

I'm basically a Objectivist, free gold libertarian (and progressive), that supports a free market and social credit and who thinks that we should move to an "equity based system" rather than a "Debt Based system". I think what people do in their own bedrooms and who they do it to is their business, not mine. I think you should maximize efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies though proper health education (if a parent approves, not if they don't) and that abortion should be minimized through effective health planning, but should be available to those who choose to use it (don't like it, wouldn't recommend it for my twin girls) but then again, I am not the person who faces that very hard decision, am I?



There see, you know exactly where I stand, wasn't so hard, was it? (And I stepped on More than enough political landmines to make a bunch of people unhappy with some or all of these positions).

Point is:

If you can get people to ask the right questions (hopefully intelligent ones) you can have a real civic discourse on the future direction of this country. Don't you think that an informed electorate is valuable to a democracy?

I ain't THE guy, I am A Guy.

All the guys and gals in this country should know what's what. And that's the only position that I'm not open-minded about.

V/R

JT

cindykimlisa
01-20-10, 05:36 PM
Why wait?

Not enough background on the issues?
Not enough time to evaluate the record?
Not qualified to make an opinion? (everyone on Itulip has an opinion, and I doubt the first two as well esp. in your case)

Which leads me back to why wait?

Don't you think you have an important voice to add to the discussion? (Esp. since the discussion we have now, HOPEFULLY, will play a part in framing the debate in 2012).

How bout this, what fiscal and economic policies of the Obama administration do you support and which ones do you not? (Good start right? We all want to express a view on what's good and what needs to be worked on.)

I'll share first, Okay?
I don't support TBTF, nor public backstops of financial institutions, though I DO support deposit insurance and the chance for folks to voluntarily move their retirement assets to safe(er) retirement products (stabilization of the Public's balance sheet GOOD, Crony Capitalism and TBTF BAD, Bonuses for the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, ALSO BAD).
I don't support fiscal policies that maintain bloated distressed assets (on the shoulders of the American Taxpayer) Dollar Devaluation, Unemployment, Tax increases those all come out of hide for the middle class.
I don't support a lack Debt reduction Esp. in light of the above.
I DO support the artist formerly know as "the public option" for the health care grammy.

I'm basically a Objectivist, free gold libertarian (and progressive), that supports a free market and social credit and who thinks that we should move to an "equity based system" rather than a "Debt Based system". I think what people do in their own bedrooms and who they do it to is their business, not mine. I think you should maximize efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies though proper health education (if a parent approves, not if they don't) and that abortion should be minimized through effective health planning, but should be available to those who choose to use it (don't like it, wouldn't recommend it for my twin girls) but then again, I am not the person who faces that very hard decision, am I?



There see, you know exactly where I stand, wasn't so hard, was it? (And I stepped on More than enough political landmines to make a bunch of people unhappy with some or all of these positions).

Point is:

If you can get people to ask the right questions (hopefully intelligent ones) you can have a real civic discourse on the future direction of this country. Don't you think that an informed electorate is valuable to a democracy?

I ain't THE guy, I am A Guy.

All the guys and gals in this country should know what's what. And that's the only position that I'm not open-minded about.

V/R

JT

Nice answer but hereagain you have hijacked the original question with your agenda.

Interestingly enough you guessed the right answer and then said it was not correct. The right answer is "not enough time to evaluate the record" Ive seen Bush eight years and Obam for one year. However, Bush was a real doozy comapred to most others in my lifetime so Intuition now tells be Obam will not do worse.

What I think right now is there is a lot of carryover from Bush with the economy and the wars. (I think Obam has little or no experience in governing and that is why I did not vote for him). I can only intuit things now I will know in 2012. Further I think there is ongoing manipulation with the Fed and I think there is ongoing manipulation with Stock prices on Wall Street. Also there is a lot of confusion about the "numbers" published by the govt. EJ's and Freds next piece will cofirm this. So with all this clutter and manipulation and misinformation, it is really difficult to figure out exactly what to blame on Obam - I am guessing in 2012 we will blame a lot on him for not bringing about the kind of change he promised in the recent pres. election.

Since I posted my answer yesterday, I have learned something new which adds to what I have said. Check out what ej said about the Mass. New Senator there and Obam and the Dems might be shut down and there might be a grassroots movement towards independent - think man think- you don't have a corner on insightm philosophy or truth.

That being said I have suggested that we dont have the same philosphy and I am fine with yours for you. And I am fine with mine for me.

Chew on this - You and that Bafoon who said I was "one of them" were right. But you got the wrong "them."

<O:p</O:p

Philosophy – Neo-Thomism


<O:p</O:pTheology is the Queen of Philosophy.

The Triune God is eternally sovereign in the Cosmos.<O:p></O:p>
“The Lord reigns, He is robed in Majesty;<O:p></O:p>
The Lord is robed; He is girded with strength.<O:p></O:p>
Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.<O:p></O:p>
Thy throne is established from old;<O:p></O:p>

Thou art from everlasting” (Psalm 93).

Ultimate Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom are from God.

“The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7).
“The Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding” (Proverbs 2:6).

Reality is found in the relational, spiritual, and physical realms of the cosmos.
Truth is authoritative, intuitive, revealed and sensual knowledge originating from the realm of God.
What is of value is that which integrates and [relationally] transforms the physical world with the spiritual world (Anthony and Benson p. 488).
My Core Philosophical Foundations

<O:p></O:p>
Metaphysics<O:p></O:p>

<O:p></O:p>

Ontology – The Triune God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is ultimately real. Reality is found in the physical, spiritual and relational realm of the cosmos.
Cosmology - God is the creator of all Microcosms of the Macrocosmic Universe.
Teleology - The Triune God is eternally sovereign. He created the cosmos for His purposes.
<O:p></O:p>
<O:p></O:p>
Epistemology


<O:p></O:p>

Truth – Wisdom from God is ultimate Truth.
Knowledge – The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of ultimateknowledge. Those who accept His words and treasure His commandments, those who make their ears attentive to His wisdom and incline their heart to understanding and those who raise their voice to His insight will understand the fear of the Lord will find the knowledge of God. With the knowledge of God we discern His truths and ways through reason, our senses and experiences, all of which (with discernment) are useful in transformation.
Authority - The everlasting Triune God is the ultimate Source and Educator for equipping Christians with authoritative and revealed knowledge and truths. “His Word gives clear guidance regarding His plans and purposes” (Anthony and Benson p.17). His word is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correcting, and for training in righteousness.


Axiology


<O:p></O:p>

God values the microcosms of the macrocosmic cosmos. Therefore it is pleasing to God that those He created very good and in His own image should ultimately be beautifully transformed in the Body of Christ to live an ethical and eternal life with Him in the cosmos.
God values the Church and its transformational Christian education process. God calls people to the church to be transformed and equipped to spread His ethical and beautiful truths and ways throughout the cosmos.
We value all of God’s creation and being in an eternal relationship with the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.
Ethics – Physical and Spiritual beings residing in the Cosmos who live physically, relationally, spiritually and eternally in accord with “with the knowledge of God.”
Beauty – Redeemed beings growing in transformational and communal cosmic relationships with creation and the Triune God to fulfill His teleological purposes.
That will give you a brief insight into who and whose I really am.

Surely it appears we march to a different drum and perhaps to a different drummer.

I don't put my faith in government or gold, but in God.

Peace

Cindy

ThePythonicCow
01-20-10, 06:24 PM
Cindy wrote:

Ive seen Bush eight years and Obam for one year. However, Bush was a real doozy comapred to most others in my lifetime so Intuition now tells be Obam will not do worse.Eight years ago, I was saying similar positive things about Bush, relative to a Clinton whom I despised.

cindykimlisa
01-20-10, 06:30 PM
I voted for "O", Didn't vote for Bush (not even once), Gave money to "O"'s campaign and a similar amount to "RP".

Synergy is doing what works, no matter which side of the isle the idea starts out on.

Dogma is continuing to use something that has proven to be invalid, which has failed, and continues to fail... and then claiming that it "works".

Intelligence is finding a solution that has worked, and is likely to work, and using it (as long as it CONTINUES to work).

Stupidity is the opposite of the above.

Me no like dogma, dogs yes, dogma, no.

Yes I get it, question is, do you? (Seems the voters in Mass, are getting it too.) ;)


Yes I get "it" but the question is how to define "it" or as clinton rightly said it depends on what "is" is.

That being said language is an issue as well as interpretation and for most things I observe you have definded concepts with your own definitions.

Problem is we don't speekee the same language cause I don't speeke yours. You kinda make some of it up as you go along.

Cindy

cindykimlisa
01-20-10, 06:46 PM
Cindy wrote:
Eight years ago, I was saying similar positive things about Bush, relative to a Clinton whom I despised.

Sorry if I led you astray here but that was not a positive response for OBAM which I made. I did not like the way Bush handled getting us into a war with Iraq in his first year.

So my first year with Bush I thought he sucked some for his poor leadership with regards to Iraq. Also I did not like how His government seemed to be infring on public rights. Many people thought Iraq war had a lot to do back then with finishing unfinished business between his dad and Saddam. Thats what I was thinking then.

With Obam after one year - carryover economic mess that Bush did not have. But Obam has not kept promises about change. What is cloudy is the manipulation and how much Obam is involved in it. Probably a lot. Sooooooo he didnt get my vote in the election and I'm not positve on him now but as I have said before looking back Bush was terrible in many ways for me.

Cindy

ThePythonicCow
01-20-10, 06:57 PM
Cindy wrote:

Sorry if I led you astray here but that was not a positive response for OBAM which I made. I did not like the way Bush handled getting us into a war with Iraq in his first year.Ah - so for you Obama versus Bush 43 is not good versus bad, but rather (bad, dubious, inconclusive) versus awful.

Yes, my evolution was different.

I've gone from enthusiastically supporting Bush 43 and putting W bumper stickers on my car (they're still there) to where I think he was as flawed as Clinton, in his own way.

Sorry for the confusion and distraction.

c1ue
01-20-10, 09:12 PM
Sorry if I led you astray here but that was not a positive response for OBAM which I made. I did not like the way Bush handled getting us into a war with Iraq in his first year.

Obama, in great contrast to Bush, pushed for more troops for the war in Afghanistan.

Oh wait, no contrast at all. :eek:


With Obam after one year - carryover economic mess that Bush did not have.

So the bursting of the Internet bubble - that being in 2000/2001 - was a hunky dory situation right? After all, Clinton wasn't responsible... He left office in January 2000.


But Obam has not kept promises about change. What is cloudy is the manipulation and how much Obam is involved in it. Probably a lot. Sooooooo he didnt get my vote in the election and I'm not positve on him now but as I have said before looking back Bush was terrible in many ways for me.

Go back and look at what Bush promised and what he delivered.

Yes, those who are liberal or progressive got little or nothing from Dubya. But then, he never promised anything. Dubya pandered to those who voted for him, then pandered to the collective desire to 'do something' after 9/11.

Obama, in contrast, has fulfilled exactly one promise so far from his campaign: increase troops in Afghanistan.

Perhaps you might remember this thread:

Obama campaign promises Haw Haw! (http://0.0.0.7/)

Or this one:

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showpost.php?p=49775&postcount=6


I'm at the point where it is impossible to determine which is the lesser of 2 evils: The well known Keating 5 participant who hypothetically has nothing more to gain in his career and is clearly too old already - therefore might truly break the mold, or the unknown who has been pragmatically playing his political stance, accepting big money from the usual suspects, but talks the good talk. Looking at the backups, it is just as bad: it is like flipping the main candidates around then switching extremist sides. Ugh.

jtabeb
01-20-10, 09:33 PM
That will give you a brief insight into who and whose I really am.

Surely it appears we march to a different drum and perhaps to a different drummer.

I don't put my faith in government or gold, but in God.

Peace

Cindy


No, no difference that I can see.

You may not accept Muslims as equally deserving of God's grace (I don' know, maybe you do), but I accept Jews and Christians (and possibly confucians, and Buddhists depending on your level of orthodoxy) as deserving God's grace.

The thinking man and the religious man are not mutually exclusive.

As a thinking man and a person who believes in God, I thank God for his guidance to trust in gold as a store of value.

Gold doesn't rule the world, God does ( but I do listen to God when he speaks). And on this subject, God's guidance is abundantly clear (to me anyway).

Parallel, maybe. But one set of rails does not a train track make.


I think it would be best if I asked for you to pray for me (if you don't mind) and (if you don't mind) I would like to pray for you.
Time reveals all, but until that time, we each can try to do as much good as we are capable of (I think that is God's mission for us all in this life, not sure if you agree, but that is my humble understanding).

Anyway, take care and may God bless you and help you find the error of your ways (and indeed, may he help me find the errors in mine).

cindykimlisa
01-20-10, 11:00 PM
Cindy wrote:
Ah - so for you Obama versus Bush 43 is not good versus bad, but rather (bad, dubious, inconclusive) versus awful.

Yes, my evolution was different.

I've gone from enthusiastically supporting Bush 43 and putting W bumper stickers on my car (they're still there) to where I think he was as flawed as Clinton, in his own way.

Sorry for the confusion and distraction.

Well said thank you.

My philosophy is not like the ancient Greek philosophy: I am not a dualistic thinker. Not all good/ bad stuff. Sometimes everybody as you say - is bad.

That is the way I saw McCain verse Obam - no good choice.



Cindy

doom&gloom
01-22-10, 02:17 AM
Obama gave up being "presidential" when he signed the Porkulus Project handed him by Pelosi/Reid. He had the opportunity to truly affect "change" at that moment, but he sent the message the CON-gress was in charge and he was along for the ride. Now it is basically too late to stand up to Pelosi/Reid and look meaningful -- the momentum is lost.

We may get lucky -- we may end up with the Obama presidency being a repeat of the Clinton presidency, where, in retrospect, Clinton had quite a good presidency because the Republicrats hated him so much they tied his hands on everything. Gridlock is a good thing in DC and that was the best gridlock we had had in a long time. Will lightning strike twice?

Ponce
03-26-10, 03:13 AM
The one that started the fire is the one to blamed and not the one that added the fuel......

I don't know, I feel that Clinton should had been in that poll, don't you think so?