Obama Report Card -Vote and be counted!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

he is a master bater.. I mean debater.. that is for sure.

especially when he kept saying he was bringing the troops home and closing Gitmo.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

hey at least she didnt accuse you of not planning for your own retirement.

You mean where I didn't do that, where I said, "You (the general you, not you specifically)" ??

[miraja2]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Things change quickly in politics, the first thing is the fall elections. Then there is two more years. To write him off now is beyond absurd, especially as the results of everything done this year will start to be felt then.

Exactly the reason to write him off.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean where I didn't do that, where I said, "You (the general you, not you specifically)" ??

actually your last sentence had nothing to do with the paragraph were you said "you (the general you, not you specifically).

If you want to backtrack now that you look foolish, than that is what we expect.

But, "And if you think you are truly screwed then not already having retirement plans in place and actively being funded makes no sense at all to me" was about ME specifically.. since I'm the one who specifically used the word "screwed". Please tell me how that wasnt directed to me?

Is that specific enough?

Good backtrack.. doesnt work though.

Your post wasnt too bad until you threw in that last, holier than thou remark that we are all used to.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you see any of the President debates, Joey?

I saw them. And McCain played it too safe. He should have taken an intellectual hatchet to Obama's positions.

Like:

"You said you think it's better when you 'spread the wealth around'. Where, exactly, in the Constitution do you find the right for any government entity to do that? Your as free to spread your own wealth around any way you like -- charity, investment, business, etc. but you don't have the right to anyone else's property."

[Antitrust32]

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]

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.

[Riot]

actually your last sentence had nothing to do with the paragraph were you said "you (the general you, not you specifically).

If you want to backtrack now that you look foolish, than that is what we expect.

Sure.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I saw them. And McCain played it too safe. He should have taken an intellectual hatchet to Obama's positions."

I read "Game Change", about the election. McCain is repeatedly represented as being rather disengaged from the whole Presidential thing, from the start. He didn't prepare for his debates, didn't take them seriously. It sure showed. He only did well in one of the three, I think.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sure.

gfy

Coach can you hook me up with a middle finger emoticon?

Thank Jeebus there is only one Riot in the world.. well there may be a few more like her in Europe.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

well his stimulus!!! It saved us from Great Depression #2 now we are just boarderline Great Depression #2 and another trillion $$ in debt from it.. and it was a terrible idea. But it was great and saved that good ol' US of A!!!

And the health care plan is going to make the young bright minds of this country all want to be doctors... because getting paid by the government is sooooo wonderful!!

and, uh, and.. um yeah he had a beer summit that ended racial tension in this country forever!!

yay!

now THAT'S funny!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by miraja2

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.

I wanted to address this but took a late lunch..

I very much agree with most of your post. Maybe I should have said Newt made Clintons legacy instead of presidency.. you are totally right, one man or one group just doesnt have enough power to dictate the economy (though everyone thought / think Bush singlehandidly ruined our economy).

Clintons' popularity jumped up in leaps and bounds after Newt and the Repub congress took over. But yeah, me personally, I think Newt is better than Bill, George and Barack combined (though that may not be saying much).

[Cannon Shell]

Obama is a pretty dreadful President but at least he didn't do this...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-c...cc=5901&ver=us

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Obama is a pretty dreadful President but at least he didn't do this...

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-c...cc=5901&ver=us

Saddam would have his thugs (sons & crew) break the feet of the Iraqi soccer players if they would not have success.

I guess volleyball is big over in Iraq also.. he would have the team locked in a very small room where they couldnt stand if they did not perform well.

The man was pretty much on scale with hitler as far as insane hate.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by geeker2

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...03544.html?tag

He better hope his dog eats it....

I'm no fan of Obama but the results of that poll are a joke. That is not a random sample. Obama's approval rating is around 45% right now. If everyone was giving him "F" grades in all categories, his approval rating would be more like 10%, not 45%.

I personally give Obama around a C- or D+. I think he's been ok on Iraq and Afghanistan. I would give him a "B" on his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm no fan of Obama but the results of that poll are a joke. That is not a random sample. Obama's approval rating is around 45% right now. If everyone was giving him "F" grades in all categories, his approval rating would be more like 10%, not 45%.

I personally give Obama around a C- or D+. I think he's been ok on Iraq and Afghanistan. I would give him a "B" on his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks Rupert..I saw that poll and just laughed.

Obviously my grade is higher..probably a B- or C+, a lot of which is his own doing and a lot the cards he was dealt.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Thanks Rupert..I saw that poll and just laughed.

Obviously my grade is higher..probably a B- or C+, a lot of which is his own doing and a lot the cards he was dealt.

I think he would have faired better if it was a FOX poll

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Obama has said himself, he'd be willing to sacrifice a second term if he could get healthcare and nuclear proliferation limitations accomplished. He's said it. That's no secret.

Oh oh

Title IX Revenue Provisions—Subtitle A:

Revenue Offset
"(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage
that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of
contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

This is what they meant when they said we need to pass it to find out what's inside. Surprise, surprise.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

gfy

Coach can you hook me up with a middle finger emoticon?

Thank Jeebus there is only one Riot in the world.. well there may be a few more like her in Europe.

ROFLMAO I win!