Obama Report Card -Vote and be counted!

Antitrust32 · #1 06-30-2010, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'll admit that I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm more progressive than this country will ever be from a political standpoint, and there is no way that the country I live in will ever look like I think it should unless I move somewhere in Europe, which I don't obviously want to do because I like it here.

I liked Clinton quite a bit, and a return to the glory days of that era would be 100% fine by me.

But at the same time, I also don't think that things can be like that again, at least not with Obama. The Right hated Clinton for the most part, but it doesn't match up in any way with how extreme their hatred for everything about Obama is. They will absolutely NOT work with him on anything. If they get control of Congress, I'd be willing to wager that there will be no "centrist" legislation whatsoever, because a great deal of folks on the right are more concerned with seeing Obama fail than they are seeing anything positive get done. And you can bet that two years of no forward progress will be just fine with them as long as it means that Obama fails.
Then again, bickering, blame, and no forward progress seems to be what everyone wants (if DT is a good microcosm of the world), so it seems that people will be, for the most part, getting exactly what they want.

I would hope and pray that our elected officials care about us constituents, even just a little bit.

But yeah you are right, they are all scum bags.

There are no Newts in the Republican part of congress anymore. (the dems may disagree, but I think he was the MAN in the 90's - he's really brilliant, with personal shortcomings - but dont we all)

Shoot.. I'd be much happier with a party full of "moderates" like Scott Brown.. even if it means the passage of progressive reforms (I just want things that will actually work an not add to our debt) at least he seems to care about his people!

joeydb · #2 06-30-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

There are no Newts in the Republican part of congress anymore. (the dems may disagree, but I think he was the MAN in the 90's - he's really brilliant, with personal shortcomings - but dont we all)

I'd love to see a Newt - Obama debate. Newt would absolutely destroy him intellectually.

brianwspencer · #3 06-30-2010, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'd love to see a Newt - Obama debate. Newt would absolutely destroy him intellectually.

Antitrust32 · #4 06-30-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

there is no doubt he would. Newt has forgot more than Obama will ever learn about this game called politics. the experience level alone is nowhere close, and Obama holds the highest office in the land!

noone in the Republican party is even close to Newt as far as brilliance goes either.

#5 06-30-2010, 12:55 PM

I think Obama could hold his own. Debates on television come down to who looks better physically and who can out bulls.hit the other.

Advantage Obama.

joeydb · #6 06-30-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I think Obama could hold his own. Debates on television come down to who looks better physically and who can out bulls.hit the other.

Advantage Obama.

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

#7 06-30-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

And when was the last time a debate like that happened?

Exactly.

Americans, for the most part, are morons. They want style over substance.

Antitrust32 · #8 06-30-2010, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

Obama could out debate Jesus with regards to your first paragraph. He's so good that he got himself elected POTUS with the minimal amount of experience and record he had. That is just amazing.

Newt > Obama with regards to actual intellect.

Riot · #9 06-30-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

Oh, if you mean a debate as devoid of substance as Obama's own campaign was, (i.e. "Hope and Change" "Yes we Can"), then sure.

I thought we were literally talking about an intellectual debate - pitting ideas against each other. The proponents of those ideas are secondary.

Did you see any of the President debates, Joey?

miraja2 · #10 06-30-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

noone in the Republican party is even close to Newt as far as brilliance goes either.

This is quite a slam on the Republican Party.

Perhaps you don't count people like Ed Feulner and George Will as being "in the Republican Party," but they far surpass Gingrich in terms of conservative "brilliance" in my estimation. Gingrich is basically an intellectual lightweight behind all of his considerable bluster.

Antitrust32 · #11 06-30-2010, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miraja2

This is quite a slam on the Republican Party.

Perhaps you don't count people like Ed Feulner and George Will as being "in the Republican Party," but they far surpass Gingrich in terms of conservative "brilliance" in my estimation. Gingrich is basically an intellectual lightweight behind all of his considerable bluster.

Gingrich made the Clinton years and would have been FAR FAR better than anyone we've had in the 10 years since.

I've never heard Gingrich and "intellectual lightweight" in the same sentence before.

miraja2 · #12 06-30-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Gingrich made the Clinton years and would have been FAR FAR better than anyone we've had in the 10 years since.

The idea that Gingrich "made the Clinton years" is a joke.
Also, the idea that Clinton "made the Clinton years" is a joke.

The combination of Silicon Valley and post-Cold War globalization made the 1990s an economically prosperous time for the United States. Did certain governmental actions (NAFTA, etc) help to fuel this growth? Sure, but the economic growth in the 1990s would - in all probability - have happened no matter who the president or the speaker of the house happened to be.

The government - and particularly the president - receive far too much credit and/or blame for how the economy is doing. The government has something to do it, but market forces independent of government involvement are way more important. That's true of the boom of the 1990s, the bust of 2008, and pretty much everything in between.

Antitrust32 · #13 06-30-2010, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeydb

I'd love to see a Newt - Obama debate. Newt would absolutely destroy him intellectually.

he's probably been the best conservative since Ronnie.

Riot · #14 06-30-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

he's probably been the best conservative since Ronnie.

Obama isn't as good a politician as Newt. I agree, he is probably the best conserve. since Reagan.

Antitrust32 · #15 06-30-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama isn't as good a politician as Newt. I agree, he is probably the best conserve. since Reagan.

I hope he runs in 2012. He's the best option this country has. Shoot I wouldnt even mind him picking Hillary, or an Independant as his running mate (though that is a pipe dream)