Are you happy with Obama as President?

[mikegideon]

This has nothing specific to to with the topic of the thread but I'm wondering who among us (and it may be many) who feel they need or should give reputation points (negative or positive) to posters based on what that poster says about a candidate or issue?

It was my understanding, based on David's post on the subject, that reputation points was not intended to become a popularity contest but it looks to me as if that's exactly what they are being used for, at least when it comes to posts about political issues or candidates.

I would hope that we are grown up enough that we can disagree with each other without making it personal but maybe that's a false hope.

Okay..soap box put away now...have a nice day.

I save the -1 button for trolls and rule violators. I also bump negatives if I don't agree with them, even though I think a post doesn't deserve a +1.

I agree, the -1 gets misused quite a bit.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've been doing that lately, also, Mike.

Say what's on your mind. Don't just play with a button.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Don't give the Dumacrats too much credit, their idiocy has really been showing lately. And I believe that Romney has got them a little worried.

You have to give them credit when they've been shown to be effective in winning elections. You're right about

the idiocy, but the fact still remains. Carville was instrumental in Clinton's wins. Idiots like Axelrod are, or were,

effective in getting Obama elected. I don't agree with them, but I have to give the heavy lifters their due.

The Republicans get it right sometimes, but the times when they get it wrong with the better candidate when the

candidate should have won leaves me scratching my head. There are a lot of Republican "wonks" out there who

do more harm than good, sometimes.

[Links2k]

I gotta say I agree with this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4EpUnlNl_E8

I remember a good spanking would usually correct me whenever I misbehaved. Maybe this guy is right. Bend over and get prepared for the switch.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We've definitely been bending over. Good point!

[Dolomite_supafly]

We've definitely been bending over. Good point!

And without even getting a kiss. Hell, I feel I need to be put on birth control so I don't get pregnant.

Dolomite

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Lester

It appears that a whole bunch of people went hook line and sinker with the commie in 08', and look at the results our country got; the first Marxist/commie to sit in Oval office in our history. The MSM would not vette the commie, but there still was enough knowledge out there to know Barry was a Marxist/commie; I knew it, and a lot of other people knew it.

Although Romney is not conservative enough for me, he still is the most conservative a candidate that we may ever get to run for POTUS as Oh Shoot notes, until the crash. I would blindly vote for a monkey before I would ever pull the lever for Obama or a third party candidate that would only ensure O's re-election. I know what is in store for our nation if we get 4 more years of Obummer; total destruction and collapse of our economy, complete trampling and disregard of our constitution, and lost liberty and freedoms. Obama's dream and plans for an Amerika is not acceptable to me, because I've always known my country as America.

Romney is the only choice our country has of displacing the commie from the WH. Whether or not he will be a good or bad president, we will only know if he gets elected, just like it has always been the case in our history of presidents. But knowing what we've got with Obummer, our country can not take the chance of re-electing the commie.

Hi Mr P

To this day, the biggest source of disappointment with Obama among his ranks-- Obama wasn't commie enough. That Obama was a sellout, yet another Bush. Which is the mirror-image equivalent of G.W.'s loss of support among conservatives a few years ago, because G.W. wasn't right-wing enough, or at least not in the right ways.

I get it. You don't have to convince me. Obama sux. No doubt about it. Indubitably. Vote for Romney, I don't care. I'll possibly vote for Romney or then again maybe not. I firmly decided not to vote Obama, only about 3.5 years ago. Duh.

Its useless belaboring. Am merely suggesting you take a good look at the new pig in a poke, not to change your vote, but to correct the mistake of Obamabots in 2008-- Willful ignorance. The ordinary Obamabot on the street might have made more productive life decisions over the last 3.5 years, dodging life's slings&arrows and avoid precious time wasted for nothing defending the indefensible just because "Obama is the messiah". If the ordinary Obamabot had paid closer attention to details. Rather than expecting everything to break out in unicorns and rainbows merely because there was finally D control in house, senate, and presidency, and all was finally right with the world. Avoidance of willful ignorance wouldn't have changed macro events. It would have freed-up time and energy for optimizing his own situation, and saved him from energy-sapping disillusionment.

Investigating the new pig in a poke, you might read some sources which you disagree. It is not uncommon for people to be bright, fanatic, and incorrect. Merely because a person is incorrect on one issue doesn't mean he is too dumb to identify other issues with which you may agree. It is possible to read opposing viewpoints, separate the wheat from the chaff, and avoid being brainwashed or contaminated merely by reading an opposing point of view. If some fella says, "If you shoot yourself in the head, the offended gunpowder god will kill you." The gunpowder god part doesn't seem hardly likely, but he's 100 percent correct about the effect of shooting yerself in the head. Wheat vs chaff.

I voted libertarian in 2000 rather than choose between equally-matched morons. One moron wanted to outlaw semi-auto handguns but otherwise a well-matched set. About 2002 I began to think that maybe Bush had turned out a slightly better moron than Gore, but by 2004 or 2005 it didn't seem so clear any more. Not that my opinion of Gore had risen, The opposite. Just that the opinion of G.W. kept sinking like a stone.

Held my nose and voted G.W. in 2004 because Kerry was so poor. But in hindsight it is hard to see how Kerry could have screwed it up any more than Bush. Kerry would have weakened the D's and strengthened the R's. G.W. did the opposite.

Voted libertarian in 2008 because McCain and Obama seemed equally bad. Had a slight feeling that if by some miracle McCain would win, he might be marginally better. It is a shame Obama has screwed everything so badly, but have become more convinced that no matter how bad Obama has been, McCain would have been worse. You will think I'm crazy, but given a binary choice between Obama and McCain, we are LUCKY Obama won. Though I wouldn't have voted Obama and do not like him. That might be the one thing you can thank Obama for-- Saving you from a President McCain.

It would be too long to explain the reasoning in this message. Maybe later if it doesn't look entirely futile to bother. Just sayin, you don't have to be willfully ignorant, regardless which devil you choose as least evil in the coming election. I'm not claiming NOT to be ignorant. Merely that I'm trying to avoid being willfully so.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only difference between Obama and McCain were their running mates.

We need to take the game out of politics.

Lester, you're so far from being ignorant that saying it is hilarious. You go way over my head, sometimes.

Actually, often.

Edited July 30, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

...Voted libertarian in 2008 because McCain and Obama seemed equally bad. Had a slight feeling that if by some miracle McCain would win, he might be marginally better. It is a shame Obama has screwed everything so badly, but have become more convinced that no matter how bad Obama has been, McCain would have been worse. You will think I'm crazy, but given a binary choice between Obama and McCain, we are LUCKY Obama won.

I don't think I can agree with the above.

I was no fan of McCain but John McCain, I believe, truly loves America and while he may not have governed well I do believe he would have at least tried to do what was right. Further, while our spending would still likely be out of control I doubt we would be looking at $Trillion deficits as far into the future as you want to look. I also think our foreign policy would have been handled far better.

Juxtapose McCain against the Marxist/communist who I truly believe has nothing but disdain for the basic American values most of us believe in and who truly believes in socialism and I can't accept the we are lucky Obama won and that's especially so after nearly four years of a President who refuses to enforce laws...who circumvents or completely ignores the Constitution whenever it suites him and who truly doesn't seem to care about the financial cliff he is pushing us over.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And without even getting a kiss. Hell, I feel I need to be put on birth control so I don't get pregnant.

Dolomite

don't go there, Gordon.

[Links2k]

I'm not happy with Obama as President, but I admire the fact that despite being one of the most hated men in the world, a socialist commie and a pal to terrorist he still became POTUS. For that alone he gets my vote for most interesting man in the world.

I mean you have people that really, really love this country and a Kenyan Muslim becomes POTUS. Even if you hate the guy you must admit that that's a miraculous accomplishment.

[kieefer]

I'm not happy with Obama as President, but I admire the fact that despite being one of the most hated men in the world, a socialist commie and a pal to terrorist he still became POTUS. For that alone he gets my vote for most interesting man in the world.

I mean you have people that really, really love this country and a Kenyan Muslim becomes POTUS. Even if you hate the guy you must admit that that's a miraculous accomplishment.

But that's not what he ran on in 08. Add to that the media love affair that helped get him elected.

Now he's been vetted, his lies are available to anyone who cares to look and his socialist policies is something he can't hide.

There is nothing I see to admire.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not happy with Obama as President, but I admire the fact that despite being one of the most hated men in the world, a socialist commie and a pal to terrorist he still became POTUS. For that alone he gets my vote for most interesting man in the world.

I mean you have people that really, really love this country and a Kenyan Muslim becomes POTUS. Even if you hate the guy you must admit that that's a miraculous accomplishment.

You have a good point!

My vote for the most interesting man in the world still goes to this guy:

"He lives vicariously through himself"

Edited July 31, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't think I can agree with the above.

I was no fan of McCain but John McCain, I believe, truly loves America and while he may not have governed well I do believe he would have at least tried to do what was right. Further, while our spending would still likely be out of control I doubt we would be looking at $Trillion deficits as far into the future as you want to look. I also think our foreign policy would have been handled far better.

Juxtapose McCain against the Marxist/communist who I truly believe has nothing but disdain for the basic American values most of us believe in and who truly believes in socialism and I can't accept the we are lucky Obama won and that's especially so after nearly four years of a President who refuses to enforce laws...who circumvents or completely ignores the Constitution whenever it suites him and who truly doesn't seem to care about the financial cliff he is pushing us over.

Thanks Robert

Alternate history is far from an exact science. No more exact than predicting the future. My guess is no better than anyone else's. Some general suppositions, hardly rigorous. If McCain had by some miracle been elected, then after 2010 he would have still been the lone ranger with D house, and he would be crossing the aisle cooperating. We would have got every silly legislation, slightly modified so that McCain could claim some of the "glory" and then he would have signed them with pride. Health Care, bailouts, NDAA, etc. The homeland security legislation would have been MORE restrictive with a president McCain, though certainly Obama is no friend to freedom. McCain would have a hundred backup internet kill switches just in case the first ten switches don't work. And then when defeated by a D as bad or worse than Obama, he would have built them a fine secret police apparatus to inherit.

Some of the following conflates with both McCain and Romney. I don't like high taxes and deficit spending. What's worse than high taxes and high deficit spending? Lower taxes and higher deficit spending! For a long time I mistakenly believed that starve the beast can work. Naive belief that the gov wouldn't mass-print money if it can't get the money any other way. I mistakenly believed that if they didn't have the money they would stop spending, but it never happened under R's or D's.

Obama cut tax while preaching tax hike and spending money hand over fist. Eventually they will get the tax hikes if they stay in power, but the hikes will never match spending unless they sock it to the middle class and poor. They have neither the will to cut spending nor raise tax on the majority of voters. But they can raise tax "invisibly" by printing money. The gov spends the printed money just like tax money, and the value of money owned by you and me is simultaneously diluted. It is the identical equivalent to a tax hike but they don't have to pick our pockets or admit to raising taxes.

Tax cuts are the R pavlovian reflex cure-all every time the economy slows. But they never significantly cut spending. Under McCain we would have PERHAPS had slight spending reductions, but the "I'll vote for your pork if you vote for mine" crossing the aisle would have included more tax cuts with McCain at the helm, when half the citizens already don't pay much fed tax. That half of citizens are taxed to death anyway just like everybody, but spending more and cutting even more tax never fixed anything. It is merely a variation of Keynsian stimulus. They point to Reagan or the early days of the G.W. tax cut as "creating prosperity" but when you continue deficit spending and also put more money in people's pockets to pump bubbles, that is the DEFINITION of keysian stimulus. Criticize keynsian stimulus of being ineffective while praising tax cuts as the better solution. But tax cuts simultaneous with deficit spending IS KEYNSIAN STIMULUS. I agree keynsian stimulus doesn't work long term regardless of the details. Even tax cut keynsian stimulus. A tax cut on-top of a balanced budget would be a good thing, but John F. Kennedy is the last time we had one of those.

There are businesses which actually do something and then there is wall street. Wall street has an angle where devaluation of currency makes money. The stock market rises every time the Fed hints that it might print another trillion. So what makes us so certain that wise busnessmen financiers such as Romney, who somehow manage to make money hand over fist every time the Fed devalues the currency and picks our pockets-- Why have much optimism that those guys are gonna have insight or a handle on fixing the problem that our retirement savings are getting whacked faster by printing of money than can ever be made up by pee-poor interest rates? Businessmen in Romney's class are part of the problem. Maybe Romney is an exception, but he swims in that pond rather comfortably to convince me that he is substantially different. Maybe he has a clue or maybe not. According to General Bullmoose, whats good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA. In some cases he may be correct but it isn't a foregone conclusion. I'm not criticizing the businessman who actually makes something or delivers a service. Wall street squeezes those guys too.

Foreign policy and wars-- First an analogy-- I had a vet for many years. A hard working conscientious nice fella who really did care about animals. Unfortunately the man was incompetent. First he misdiagnosed one dog, causing months of wrong treatment until the dog was near gone, and then a couple more months of expense and animal suffering trying to fix what turned out too far gone to fix. So OK, anybody can make a mistake and he really was a nice guy. Then a couple of years later he did the same misdiagnosis to a second dog, with similar results. Both misdiagnosis were easily caught within a couple hours testing by a competent emergency animal clinic once the dogs got so sick they were on death's door. The vet was a caring hard working man who I consider a friend, but I couldn't trust any more pets to his care. Regardless how well-intended you can't keep subsidizing a screw-up.

OK, Bill Kristol on fox news. When appearing as a talking head from early on, introduced as "editor of a magazine nobody reads". Now they were not lying, but not telling the whole truth either. They never introduced him as, "For the last decade the leading Invade Iraq proponent, co-founder of an Invade Iraq think tank, with members soon to become part of the Bush administration and-- You guessed it-- Invade Iraq."

Kristol liked McCain better than G.W. in the Y2K primary. Kristol liked McCain better than Romney in 2008. But both McCain and Romney have surrounded themselves with the same screwups who brought us a deficit war in Iraq paired with tax cuts we can't afford. I'm not praising high taxes, but the only way to cut taxes is to cut spending, not run multiple wars on the credit card hoping that some time or t'other in the far future, the budget will magically balance because wall street finally got people's money that the gov didn't already take.

Kristol and his buddies-- Maybe they have intentions pure as the driven snow and maybe they are the smartest humans in the galaxy, but just like me firing my incompetent vet, you don't keep hiring screwups. Call it faulty logic, but the mere fact that Kristol liked McCain best is strong indication that McCain would have been the worst for the job. Tis hardly encouraging that McCain in 2008 hired the same screwups that brought us the Iraq war, and the same screwups are working for Romney right now. Maybe Romney won't pay attention to what they say, but the old gang of screwups is advising Romney. How many chances do they get, hoping they get it right this time? They want to fight Israel's wars and invade Iran. Have wanted to for a long time. When they wanted to invade Iraq, it took em years but eventually they got their way. So that crew has a track record of busting the budget and screwing up wars, making the public mad enough to elect commies. And Romney's listening to these people? I'm sposed to be confident they will get it right this time?

Fer sure Obama sux. Romney might be better. Or not. I can't predict the future. Maybe this time they can get in there, roll up their sleeves and work hard with the purest intentions, and screw it up enough by 2016 to elect President Van Jones in a landslide.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

[media=]

[/media]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You may not see much difference in the tax

code for a couple years, anyway, except a

continuation of the current rate, but rates

should go down or be replaced with a flat

something or that Fair Tax. Nothing will

change enough to make a difference until

then. This Keynsian crap we have been using

seems to benefit the Fed and the major banks

but will kill us all in the end. You can't keep

spending something you don't have to stimulate

an economy. It has to be paid back, eventually.

Stalin considered Keynes another useful idiot

and he nailed that.

Same with regulations. A lot of them need to be

dropped completely. Our coal energy is being

killed by these rapists at the EPA for political

reasons only. Look at other industries and I'll

bet you would find a thousand regs that shouldn't

be there, to begin with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest ThePunisher]

You may not see much difference in the tax

code for a couple years, anyway, except a

continuation of the current rate, but rates

should go down or be replaced with a flat

something or that Fair Tax. Nothing will

change enough to make a difference until

then. This Keynsian crap we have been using

seems to benefit the Fed and the major banks

but will kill us all in the end. You can't keep

spending something you don't have to stimulate

an economy. It has to be paid back, eventually.

Stalin considered Keynes another useful idiot

and he nailed that.

Same with regulations. A lot of them need to be

dropped completely. Our coal energy is being

killed by these rapists at the EPA for political

reasons only. Look at other industries and I'll

bet you would find a thousand regs that shouldn't

be there, to begin with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Interestingly enough, we have paid less taxes of late. Supposedly, there has been far less taxes during the current administration, than even the previous one.

Reality is this: The POTUS has little power to effect, or affect, the day to day lives of the citizens. The key group which does is the Legislative Branch. O cannot do much of anything without the consent of Congress.

That said, meh. He is meh. Has not really done anything so damn destructive as the propaganda claims. Nor has he done much of anything which builds the country. His hands are tied by the Constitution and the Congress.

That said, we have a choice between more of the same, or, well, more of the same come November.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess you'll be going to Puerto

Rico for your health care? That is

his baby although it originated

elsewhere. Not too much else,

just regulated coal fired power

plants out of business.

Need more not much of anything?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm, in my quick reading, most of those clean air rule impacts were supposed to take effect before he came into office, but were not enforced, due to the electric companies claiming the plants were soon to be shuttered. (See Bush's national air pollution plan.) In addition, I hear reports that 8.5% of the coal plants are shutting due to the new rules. Is that significant? Besides, the older, less efficient plants have been hit much harder by the free economy: Higher cost of coal (due to Chinese demand) plus lower Natural Gas prices (due to oversupply in the market) and a weaker demand for electricity. Goes more to my point of him having less power than what is expected out of the position of POTUS. Even the power company's industry group spokesperson has down played the regulations.

It seems only group that is livid is the opposing party.

Another thing: If Congress wants to block the regulations, they can.

As for the health care act. Who wrote the legislation, and passed it? (True with Presidential approval) Congress did. He, again, had to have Congressional backing to do it. And no, I get to stay right here, as I have a pre-existing condition, and can now have coverage.

Counter example: Light bulbs. Law created and passed by Congress. Eliminated a large portion of U.S. production of light bulbs, as these factories were old, and it was just easier to build new in China.

Edited August 1, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Sorry to hear about the condition.

A lot of the arm twisting was done

by Obama and minions in the WH.

Yeh, I'm still angry about the curlyq

bulbs.

A lot more plants will close or

mothball.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest FIST]

Bill Kristol "semi quasi machine guns that shoot a 100rds at once"

Not the guy I'd like working with the savior that replaces the savior. I have decided I'm done with the 2 parties. I want a POTUS that none of the politicians want , someone who won't continue the destructive politics we have now. Who that is? Who knows, but it isn't Romney or Obama.

[Links2k]

Bill Kristol "semi quasi machine guns that shoot a 100rds at once"

Not the guy I'd like working with the savior that replaces the savior. I have decided I'm done with the 2 parties. I want a POTUS that none of the politicians want , someone who won't continue the destructive politics we have now. Who that is? Who knows, but it isn't Romney or Obama.

Welcome to the club. Neither may get my vote. I'm fine with the chips falling where they may. I can't stand either candidate. I'll continue to bear the pain. Nothing new for me.

[Guest Southern Christian Armed]

From a very Repiblican person:

This might have been posted, but I dislike Obama more for his First Lady than him. Not everything can be blamed on him but other elected officials. But her cramming stuff down our schools throats about what I should or should not send to school for my sons lunch is about as bad as someone telling me guns kill. I dont mind a happy meal having 4 french fries and apples added to it, but what is happening is a soft cover (going into schools) instead of breaking your door down and taking your crisco from the pantry and the jelly beans from your kids. Just my two cents (and that wont get you far)!

[Defender]

I fail to understand how ANY rational thinking person can look at Obama with anything but disgust. But I respect your right to do so. Im not a fan of anyone that the Republican party has put forward lately. The bottom line is that the majority of the people in this country are center right, politically. What this means is that for a Dem to get elected he/she must be perceived as close to a moderate. Same is true for a Repub. One must move to the right, if they are too far to the left, and the other must move to the left, if they are too far to the right. Maybe this is a good thing or not, but at least it tends to make the election one that is decided by a majority of the voters, assuming that all voters are legitimate. Personally, I am fare more of a right winger than not. Probably somewhat of a Libertarian, but not as naive as I consider most of them to be. I mean, without SOME government, I think we'd have anarchy.

I will be voting for Romney. Obama is simply not an option for me as I feel his intent to, in his own words, "fundamentally change America," are contrary to what I envision for this country. He has already had some measure of success in this, and given another term, I think we might not even recognize our country after 4 more years. I am not a fan of McCain, other than my personal respect for his integrity and wartime valor and POW actions.

I still think hed be better than Obama.

As far as Romney goes, well Im no fan, however, I learned my lesson about the two party system when Ross Perot ran and got Clinton elected. (At that time, I was unaware of Perot's liberal stances on gun control and abortion.) In any event, what i learned was that voting for a 3rd party candidate only helps the Dems as it normally takes away some of the Conservative supporters of the Repubs. This is a major reason why I think the Libertarians have it wrong. This and their naivety on many issues. For a conservative to cast a vote for anyone other than the Repub candidate is simply half a vote for the Dems, as it just takes one away form the Repubs. One thing to consider is that even if you agree that most of America is center right, the fact of the mater remains that the left is far more successful in getting people to vote. If the conservatives were nearly as good, i doubt there would even be a race. They are also usually more united than we are. How many conservatives have you heard say something like " I just CANT vote for Romney"? Then contrast that with how many libs have you heard say the same thing about Obama? Not near as many I bet.

I kinda look at the situation as America is sliding down the slippery slope towards anarchy and worse. The Dems seem to want to hasten this process, while the Repubs, while not actually wanting to reverse it, like conservatives do, at least want to slow down the slide to the precipice.

We need to work on getting TRUE conservatives in office at every level. Again, I don't see how any rational thinking person can vote for anyone other than Romney this time. Not quite as simple as the lesser of two evils analogy, but that does kinda fit.