Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 47
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......Page 3 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

His name is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.


Yes. I know his name. Are you concerned that I'm not showing him proper respect???
Puleeeze. He would probably kill me in an instant if he could.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 3/24/2011 5:52:13 PM
Twisting it back at the OP, would you have voted again for Palin/McCain, knowing now how batsh*t crazy and ignorant she is? Just curious. Most former swallowers of hers seem to be backing away and distancing themselves. We would be in a NuCular Holocaust by now if she had offed McCain out of grief and the need to get away from that voice by any means possible. Just sayin...as they sayin.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 49
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 3/24/2011 7:49:18 PM

... would you have voted again for Palin/McCain, knowing now how batsh*t crazy and ignorant she is? Just curious.
Good point.

Most former swallowers of hers seem to be backing away and distancing themselves.
Yet ........ pathetic as it is, she still has her swallowers.

Sort of looks like former US Ambassador, John Bolton now wants the job of POTUS. Oh dear ...

Israel ... done bad things to the us and its other allies in the past.
Spying, bombing warships.

Can they be trusted?
NO!!!

That the US supports Israel in spite of their proliferation of terrorism on their immediate neighbors ... makes us just as despicable. Israel is doing their best to instigate us into dropping a bomb on Iran. Talk about bloodthirsty and greedy. I'd imagine the goal there is (once we drop the bomb) to just march in there and take Iran's land in the same way they are stealing the Palestinian land.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 3/24/2011 10:42:56 PM
Twisting it back at the OP, would you have voted again for Palin/McCain, knowing now how batsh*t crazy and ignorant she is?

err.... Didn't we know this pretty well in 2008?

I just considered it a choice between two really bad candidates.

Actually three. Even the libertarian candidate was pretty bad. 2008 was a very bad year for presidential candidates.
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 51
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 3/25/2011 4:00:54 AM

Actually three. Even the libertarian candidate was pretty bad. 2008 was a very bad year for presidential candidates.


I second that Bob Barr is noooo Libertarian! I ended up casting my vote for the Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. Yes, it was a wasted vote but voting for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 3/28/2011 10:46:26 AM

Yes. I know his name. Are you concerned that I'm not showing him proper respect???
Puleeeze. He would probably kill me in an instant if he could.

Uh... he could. Hell I probably could, but I'd face way more consequences for it. You think someone with the resources that guy has couldn't off someone? He has no reason to, but he definitely could. Mobsters with a few million bucks backing them can pull off hits on people in federal protection. This guy probably has billions at his disposal. Think about it.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/15/2011 7:09:19 PM

OP- your courage and intellectual honesty demonstrated by your willingness to openly question Obamas failure to keep promises that were important to you, promises you believed, is admirable.
Why thank you.

I see it as nothing more than (for example) having a favorite teacher ... that I might vote for as "teacher of the year" ... even though I wasn't always pleased with everything the teacher did.

Rarely do I see his supporters admit their disappointment in him ...
Open your eyes ... we are everywhere.

Here's a good example of Republicans holding up a Republican president ... constantly quoting his words ..."Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” ... even though quite a few of us know that it's really a joke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall
(Excerpts)
Tear down this wall!
U.S. President Ronald Reagan speaking in front of the Brandenburg Gate at the Berlin Wall.

In a speech at the Brandenburg Gate near the Berlin Wall on June 12, 1987, commemorating the 750th anniversary of Berlin, Reagan challenged Gorbachev (who was then the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), to tear it down as a symbol of Gorbachev's desire for increasing freedom in the Eastern Bloc.

Twenty-nine months later, on November 9, 1989, after intense East German protest, East ermany finally opened the Berlin Wall.
Of course those of us who lived in Western Europe laughed our butts off (I still do and know of many who still do). We all knew that it was about to crumble anyways. We got news over there that people weren't getting.

I lived in West Germany and had contact with people who lived in East Germany on a regular basis since my father-in-law's family was from East Germany and often visited in the West. (Retired folks were encouraged by the East to visit in the West and if possible, stay there so that the East Government would no longer have to pay them their retirement. What a concept ... eh?)

Most of us already knew that things were deteriorating rapidly by then in East Germany and we all knew that the Soviets very soon would not be able to maintain East Germany.

But Reagan is idolized for saying it. Trust me ... it's a joke. The wall was not gonna last all that long at the point in which Reagan said that.

I know people who still idolize Nixon ... also a joke.

I just happened to mention that I'm not too happy about us still being in the war ... but then I'm not alone in that ... right? I know lots of Republicans who aren't happy about us still being involved in the "Dubya" wars of nonesense.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/15/2011 7:40:15 PM
Your post has me confused a bit.

You criticize people for holding Reagan's words in esteem, and claim they were a joke, and the Wikipedia article you linked appears to assert otherwise, including quotes from leaders in West Germany and leaders from within Reagan's own administration. What inside knowledge do you have that the administrations of the national governments of both countries did and do not have?

And I don't know about idolizing Nixon (but I don't really idolize anyone), but he was an excellent president. People only remember him for Watergate, unfortunately, but he had many notable accomplishments while in office, and his approval rating throughout his presidency was quite high. What is your beef there, too? Other than the R next to his name?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/16/2011 8:29:21 AM

And I don't know about idolizing Nixon (but I don't really idolize anyone), but he was an excellent president. People only remember him for Watergate, unfortunately, but he had many notable accomplishments while in office, and his approval rating throughout his presidency was quite high.


Nixon was pretty frackin evil. He sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks for political gain, killing 20,000 Americans and millions of Indochinese as a result. In extending the war for political gain, he also tore apart the social fabric of this country that led to harsh divisions that are still being felt today. I would rank Nixon and lil Bush as tied for most evil presidents.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/16/2011 9:55:53 AM

You criticize people for holding Reagan's words in esteem, and claim they were a joke, and the Wikipedia article you linked appears to assert otherwise, including quotes from leaders in West Germany and leaders from within Reagan's own administration.

LMAO ... I knew you'd attack my post. Jumped on it right away! Just too funny!

1)Good old Helmut Kohl ... one had to live there under his leadership (if you can call it that) in order to really know how valuable his opinion is on anything. Because of different ways they conduct their elections in Germany, we got stuck with that A$$hole way too long. One does not have to search too far to find out what others also thought about him. All you have to do is Google "Helmut Kohl was an A$$hole" and you'll find it.

2) I place no value whatsoever on anything a so-called leader from within Reagan's own administration would ever have to say about him. He's the one who gave us Cheney and Rumsfeld.


What inside knowledge do you have that the administrations of the national governments of both countries did and do not have?
One has only to travel extensively (which I have done) in the East Bloc countries and talk to the people (which I can do because I know the language) to get the true picture of what bankrupted the Soviets where East Germany was concerned. The Soviets were in such deep trouble that it was getting to the point that they could not feed the people. East German farmers told us that they were being ordered to harvest crops earlier and earlier each year (towards the end there) because the Soviets were running out of food.

For the most part, very little improvements were ever made to the infrastructure of East Germany. That's why shortly after the Wall came down, all along the borders of East Germany I witnessed something that I've never before seen in my life ... we're talking crane city. Cranes as far as the eye could see ... until one got deeper and deeper in what used to be East Germany territory.

As I drove further and further (deeper) into East Germany, one could still see buildings with bullet holes and damage from the war that had never been repaired. Many more homes than not all still had outhouses ... no indoor plumbing had been installed after all those years.

After all, as one of the residents I spoke with stated, "Why in the world would any of us make any improvements on anything we don't own? Not to mention we never had the money for it and even if we would have had the money for it, it would have taken years to get any construction material since anything that was produced here always got shipped off to be used elsewhere ... not here." I think it's also safe to say that a lot of what was produced in East Germany back then had to go towards backing the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

The West Germans also had surveillance pictures of how the East Germans were farming their land. (The West Germans are among the best farmers in the world and as they anticipated more and more the fall of the Wall, they knew they had to know more and more about what to expect from the land once Germany was re-united.) They could actually see that fields were being planted but not harvested appropriately. The word from the folks visiting in West Germany (and I knew some of them and talked with them) was that while they eventually were able to get the fields planted, crops were not being rotated appropriately and they had no well-functioning machines to harvest the crops that did manage to grow.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/03-8
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
Excerpts ...

Cruelty with a Smile
With his superficially sunny disposition - and a ruthless political strategy of exploiting white-male resentments - Reagan convinced millions of Americans that the threats they faced were: African-American welfare queens, Central American leftists, a rapidly expanding Evil Empire based in Moscow, and the do-good federal government.

When it came to cutting back on America's energy use, Reagan's message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, "Don't worry, be happy." Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.

The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W. Bush didn't invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.

Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as "supply side" economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.

Over the years, "supply side" would evolve into a secular religion for many on the Right, but Reagan's budget director David Stockman once blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink "as far as the eye could see."

While conceding that some of Reagan's economic plans did not work out as intended, his defenders - including many mainstream journalists - still argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he "won the Cold War," a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his historical biography.

However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the West.

I lived over there in the 1970's and 1980's. That's how I know about what was going on.

That was the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA's analytical division. Also, I was told by a senior CIA's operations official that some of the CIA's best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the view that the Soviet Union was headed toward collapse, not surging toward world supremacy, as Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted in the early 1980s.

The CIA analysis was the basis for the détente that was launched by Nixon and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most dangerous remaining aspects of the Cold War.

The Afghan Debacle
In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan, the Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking to modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.

Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan's nuclear bomb for its help in shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).
Wow ... I mean just WOW!!!

While Reagan's acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in "winning the Cold War," the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in disarray - and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union's final collapse - it also created twin dangers for the future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan's unstable Islamic Republic.

Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In Latin America, for instance, Reagan's brutal strategy of arming right-wing militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence of populist leftist governments.

In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan once denounced as a "dictator in designer glasses") is now back in power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.

In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called "perception management," the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.
Is that "Fear Mongering"? LMAO ... "Dumbya" had a good mentor in Reagan ... eh"?

Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.

To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the era's feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or - in Jeane Kirkpatrick's memorable attack line - they would "blame America first."

Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think tanks that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there were attack groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared disclose information that poked holes in Reagan's propaganda themes.

In effect, Reagan's team created a faux reality for the American public. Civil wars in Central America between impoverished peasants and wealthy oligarchs became East-West showdowns. U.S.-backed insurgents in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan were transformed from corrupt, brutal (often drug-tainted) thugs into noble "freedom-fighters."

With the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan also revived Richard Nixon's theory of an imperial presidency that could ignore the nation's laws and evade accountability through criminal cover-ups. That behavior also would rear its head again in the war crimes of George W. Bush. [For details on Reagan's abuses, see Robert Parry's Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege.]

Wall Street Greed
The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan's tenur.

While he played the role of the nation's kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using "wedge issues" to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of "reverse discrimination" and "political correctness."

Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.

Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.
Again ... wow ... just WOW!!!!

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their "perception management" tactics, depicting the "war on terror" - like the last days of the Cold War - as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.

The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons' exaggerated depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s - and again the propaganda strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.

Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasy land - that Ronald Reagan began in the early 1980s - reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they needed an effective government.

Still, the disasters - set in motion by Ronald Reagan - continued to roll in. Bush's Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.

Love Reagan; Hate Bush
Ironically, George W. Bush has come in for savage criticism, but the Republican leader who inspired Bush's presidency - Ronald Reagan - remained an honored figure, his name attached to scores of national landmarks including Washington's National Airport.
*******************
Reagan's presidency represented a dangerous escape from accountability - and reality.
*******************
It's a sure thing that the Reagan Centennial Committee won't do much more than add to the hagiography surrounding the 40th President.

Despite the grievous harm that Reagan's presidency inflicted on the American Republic and the American people, it may take many more years before a historian has the guts to put this deformed era into a truthful perspective and rate Reagan where he belongs -- near the bottom of the presidential list.



And I don't know about idolizing Nixon (but I don't really idolize anyone), but he was an excellent president.
Already addressed ... no need for me to make further comment.

As I said ... Reagan was a joke in Germany and I might add ... a disaster here.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/17/2011 6:11:51 PM
Okay, I see that you have issues with both presidents, but you didn't really address anything I said in response to your first post. Nobody else in referring to Pres Reagan's speech seemed to think he was just joking. In fact, the tone of analysis of his speech and the analysis of the decision of him putting it in seems to say quite the opposite. Whether or not the wall was sustainable or not, it seems that your personal observation contradicts every authority that's written on the topic.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/19/2011 5:16:21 PM
^^^^^
Nobody else in referring to Pres Reagan's speech seemed to think he was just joking. In fact, the tone of analysis of his speech and the analysis of the decision of him putting it in seems to say quite the opposite.
Learn to read ... I didn't say Reagan was "joking" ... because I'm sure he wasn't trying to be "funny" when he said what he said. Those of us who knew what was going on in the East Zone (our name for it) considered what he said as a joke because we knew what was going on ... mostly first hand.

Whether or not the wall was sustainable or not, it seems that your personal observation contradicts every authority that's written on the topic.
There has been much written and spoken about what went on in the East Zone agriculturally ... it's not just in my imagination. As I mentioned, I spoke with people who lived it (first hand) and even got to witness some of it first hand. Have you?

LMAO at your efforts to always put down any post I make. Simply hilarious.

Oh well ... it keeps you busy and perhaps by stalking me and over-criticizing my posts, you leave others alone. Once again ... points awarded for your efforts in jumping right on my post and trying to put it down.

OT ...
I would have voted for OBAMA no matter what ...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/20/2011 5:59:55 PM
Obama was the lesser of the evils presented in the last POTUS cycle. Unless you voted purely out of emotion or lack of reasoning skills, there was really no other choice given the previous 8 years of utter insane fiscal and geopolitical insanity.

The Teapublicans are masters are playing on emotion over reason, or what is best for the country. There is considerably buyer's remorse going on over the corporate puppets of the Tea Farty who wish to rob seniors, the working class, kids, the environment, public safety and a myriad of other issues that affect the vast majority. Just because they manipulated emotions and threw reasoning out the door, does not mean that they will prevail over reason. Most people are reasonable. The tea farts, and far right are not. Try to take away a piece of pork from one of them and see the limits of reason. Same game, different BS, different audience, but same results. Trump is a joke. Even his hair is not honest. Was he born on this planet...show us the documentation!
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 4/21/2011 8:17:11 AM

Learn to read ... I didn't say Reagan was "joking" ... because I'm sure he wasn't trying to be "funny" when he said what he said. Those of us who knew what was going on in the East Zone (our name for it) considered what he said as a joke because we knew what was going on ... mostly first hand.

Gotcha. I misunderstood.


I would have voted for OBAMA no matter what ..

Pretty sure we all knew that.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 6/19/2011 7:32:03 PM
well I did know he was going to more into Afghanistan and yes I wish we were out of there,but I have to look at the whole scope of what he has accomplished,which makes him a darn good president,but as your questions asks,would I have voted for him anyways.Well with McCain and Palin as our option,I must say,Oh God yes I would..............Palin,what a horror that would have been,you betcha.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 6/20/2011 1:23:13 AM
If McCain and Palin had been able to flip the votes with the computer firms who control the votes now, Palin would already have resigned to move on to something more interesting and less challenging and McCain would have us in a few more wars, Iran included. Sorry the Oiligarchy got Obama to invade Libya, but at least we have not launched the nukes and started Armageddon as Palin was/is wont to do. Gotta watch the Bachmann monster as well. She is another fundie end times fantasy girl.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 6/20/2011 12:15:04 PM
Good points,yes it would have been worse with Palin/McCain but it was never bad with Obama.

Heres a strong point,we were losing jobs every day with Bush and then Obama brought up the losses to gains and now its steady gains each month,anyone know the exact figure,we were losing like 400,000 jobs ever month when Obama took over,ever see the numbers chart on that fact.9% unemployment,wow,if this had been the republicans they would be telling us that how could you possibly hold us to this number,with the disasters,the job and home stripping disasters we have suffered as a country while Obamas term had it been their term.

Tens of thousands of jobs lost to the Gulf oil spill,and they still have not recovered,record breaking floods,twisters,ect ect all stripping entire areas of jobs,my area right now 4 forest fires out of control nearly 900,000 acres burned ,all summer vacation spots in the prettiest vacation areas closed,hundreds of lost homes,businesses,no customers for the burnt down hotels and restaurants,job losses jumping hourly,fires not close to being controlled so as jobs were having gains other areas were destroyed ,yet some of the ones with blinders on their eyes never take such important facts into considerations,never do they think does Japans earthquake,or Haiti's earthquake,or the flooding of thousands of acres on purpose to save a town,should be a consideration.

On the Gulf spill alone ,how many jobs do you think were lost do to the oil industries blunder,from hotel staff,to restaurants,fishing fleets ect during that time,they never counted did they,most deckhands were never a count they were under the table ,maybe a couple hundred thousand ????? how many connected jobs to that industry in the states that the oil industry decided not to repay.Even the Katrina disaster is still in the works,so he being where he has the unemployment now is worth my applause,Well done Mr.President,how are you able to hold these low numbers steady during so many man made and natural disasters,well done ! Exemplary job !
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 6/21/2011 12:53:50 PM
Many of the major economists said absolutely we adverted far worse a problem some say depression even,and although I feel Bush let us get so deep initially in the hole I do believe it was he that started the turn around,I truly believe had the horrid awful banks not been bailed out,if the poor business practices of the major car companies not been helped,and if he had not done the stimulus ,the collapse we would have felt would have been way to much to bare,it all happened at the same time,and thats why I think it would have hurt.I think then Obama stepped in,did another stimulus,furthered the bank bailout proceedings and basically continued on with what had already been put into place,I believe if Obama and Bush had not done this then yes we might and probably been to a depression level,I'm glad both presidents did it,even though I think no company deserves bailouts that performed so poorly while in practice,

I have heard from many of our top economists,Regan's,Bushes,Obama,Clintons,Carters,ect and I hear the same thing.

I just feel it all happening at the same time would have created to perfect storm.I now wish anyone had the power to make banks loan money,as long as they refuse to spend the money we all are at a standstill.I heard the same businesses say if Bush could get the banks to loan their company money they could buy more merchandise to sell and hire people,but with no money being loaned then its a stand still,I see the same problem now,Obama cannot get them to pry their horrible stingy old fingers off our money we put into their banks.Problem not solved,not even close,Bush nor Obama have yet to solve this.Having gone from 400000 jobs lost a month up to zero up the gains month after month is proof its all working again,but that does not deal with the banks.

I heard Buffet,Gates,Clinton,Trump and others all say until Banks will loan the money we are basically stalled from further gains.How can we halt a foreclosure if the banks will not even help.Who has some pixie dust,please come forward,I see no GOP person nor new Dem running who I feel have the power to make the bank give it up,there lies the most major problem we suffer.I say force them through regulations and GOP say lets get rid of the pesky rules for them,who wins??????????

I still am overall very satisfied with his progress,and as with all presidents even he whom I admire and respect so much has his problem areas,other presidents I just faulted them with far more problem areas.I liked Clinton just as much as Obama.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 6/26/2011 5:25:54 AM
^^^Re-write history much?
It was the combination of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, ignoring warning of an impending attack, then reacting to the attack precisely wrong on so many levels, that plunged the US into it's most massive debt, killed several times more Americans than the attack itself did, ran away from chasing bin Laden to go off on a personal vendetta in Iraq, killed orders of magnitude more innnocent people than what got killed here on 9/11, and executed his war of Error in such a way as to perpetuate a perpetual war that will bankrupt us as surely as the Afghans bankrupted the Soviet Empire. The oil war costs are actually in the Trillions of wasted dollars/subsidies for record oil company profits. Additionally Bush and his PNAC cohorts did more to destroy the Constitution ("god-damned piece of paper" Bush) and Bill of Rights than any president prior. Everything about Bush was fake or manufactured, from his faux "ranch", to his "mission accomplished" cod piece/photo op. Bush was merely a chickenhawk, war monger/war criminal that is lucky to have escaped trial and execution for this long.

Yeah, Obama is just as dissappointing as Clinton was in allowing himself to be tugged to the right by Republican obstructionistas, but at least he is not evil so far.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 6/26/2011 9:20:50 AM

Please provide citation for Bush's "paper" quote.
Also, please share in what way he destroyed the Bill of Rights.
were you out of the country during this,the him saying the constitution was "just a piece of paper"was all over the news,they kept showing him over and over saying the one time ! Bill of rights,really, goodness grcious where does one even start,thats just a bad question,got a week to listen, to many past threads have listed repeatedly the list.

As for the Clinton Obama comparison,Clinton brought us into the plus side of debt then Bush spent 8 yrs seeing how much of a record low he could spend us into.How many presidents have brought our debt into a plus ? I'm waiting............you act like this is a nothing


No man, who accepts such an honorable position as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America and her Armed Forces should EVER allow himself to submit, surrender, or even yield to any opponent, rather foreign or domestic when he is completely ascertain of the correct course of action needed to protect its citizens. Even in the face of death.
all he had to do was lie about weapons of mass destruction and we all fell into agreement with him ,most of us backed off that notion as soon as we realized we were conned,then Bush said it no longer matter whether there were actually WMDs.So originally when they found almost all the terrorists were Saudis,we attacked Iraq and Saddam why.................guess just to blow a trillion for kicks............many died,and for what ,oh yes,piles of current debt and finish unfinished business Daddy started in the Kuwait war?

I have to say if the major banks,which I hate,had not been bailed out in some form at the exact time the major auto manufacturers,which I also hated for bad business practices, would have put unemployment at a figure more like 15% unemployment,then when the Gulf spill hit and 3 years of some of the worst disasters in the history of this country occurred ,I would shoot the number up about 5% more,instead we are seeing a steady 9,we would be at like 20%.We were losing 400,000 jobs a month during Bush and now its in the plus side month after month,and you said Obama has done nothing

Billionaires at 38% tax,well you could not be more incorrect,and the McDonalds person at 15.You obviously don't understand how the tax rate works for the wealthiest do you.Warren Buffet even stated his disappointment and the unfairness to he having a 15% tax rate while the secretaries of his company paid 26%. Billionaires being allowed massive tax breaks while the small guy gets his burden is one of our huge problems right now,all anyone is asking is Billionaires pay what the small guy does,all we want is them to get that extra 10 or so % so they pay as much as everyone else.I've heard your argument on the 38% many times from your side,its always some small republican McDonalds worker defending the poor Billionaire,someone who actually believes what the Billionaire told them,then that little guy stumps for them.Its wrong,its incorrect facts.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 1/30/2012 9:23:58 PM

I guess you missed the part that said the dumping of bodies in the landfill happened from 2003 - 2008. I guess you must be aware that George Bush was in office then.
Doesn't matter to "Dumbya" fans. For some, he didn't get anything wrong ... just President Obama.

By the way. Surely you are aware the war in Iraq is over and the troops are home?
Sometimes when folks "step away" from the forums for a while, they might lose track of things? Just a guess, not an answer for the lack of knowledge ... generally.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 2/1/2012 6:05:47 PM
The untanking of the stock market is just one of the reasons I'd vote for the Pres. again. Here's another....

The automotive bailout. Yes, I am glad he did it. Chrysler Jeep is made in my town of Toledo, Oh. Since the bailout Jeep and Chrysler have had increased sales. So much so that Jeep has been hiring. I heard as many as 1100 workers.

All the Republican candidates were in favor of letting the auto plants fold. That would have devastated this town as Jeep/Chrysler is it's largest employer.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 69
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 2/3/2012 5:09:35 AM
..... I knew that he wouldn't be able to accomplish all his goals in the first year in office?

Considering the candidates from the other party, I had no choice but to vote for President Obama. Besides, I will never be able to vote for the Republicans. I have lost too much in my life due to the idiocy of Republicans like Nixon and Kissinger, and all the Republicans that have been in power after them, to ever consider voting for a Republican in the years that I have left to live. I hope all my descendants will never vote for any Republicans in the future.

Like some other posters have said, it looks as if President Obama has been trying to deliver on his promises. I didn't hold my nose when I voted for him last time, and I am hoping that I will be able to vote for him again if he is able to contain all the war crazies that want to start a war with Iran.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 2/3/2012 7:44:00 PM

... if he is able to contain all the war crazies that want to start a war with Iran.
Yes ... let's hope he can resist the urge to accompany Israel into that battle.

Let's hope he can fight off all the calls to arms from all their lethal and faithful entourage here in the US. That alone will be quite a battle ... AIPAC is a very busy lobby and they are not used to losing. They pretty much own the better part of Congress. Let's hope they don't yet own our President. (Has Hillary already been bought off?)

Anyways, the Iranophobes are not going to settle for anything short of jumping on the Israeli bandwagon ... at the hope of starting a war with Iran ... whether on behalf of Israel or just because the war-mongers just can't be happy unless the US is at war with someone.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/30-0
NYT Hypes Israeli Attack on Iran
by Ira Chernus

It’s an impressive piece of art: the cover of this week’s New York Times Magazine. “ISRAEL VS. IRAN,” spelled out in charred black lettering, with flame and smoke still rising from “IRAN,” as if the great war were already over. Below those large lurid letters is the little subtitle: “When Will It Erupt?” -- not “if,” but “when,” as if it were inevitable. Though the article itself is titled “Will Israel Attack Iran?”, author Ronen Bergman, military analyst for Israel’s largest newspaper, leaves no doubt of his answer: “Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012.”

Bergman does cite some compelling arguments against an Israeli strike from former heads of Mossad (Israel’s CIA). And he makes it clear that no attack can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if it wants them. Everyone agrees on that. The argument is only about whether an attack would delay the Iranian program by a few years or just a few months.
So if no one can prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, why try? Because it's what Israel wants and whatever "little brother" wants, "little brother" gets. Whatever "little brother" wants ... America to the rescue?

Nevertheless, his article stacks the deck in favor of supposedly persuasive reasons for Israel to act. It’s almost a hymn of praise to what one Jewish Israeli scholar has called Iranophobia, an irrational fear promoted by the Jewish state because "Israel needs an existential threat." Why? To sustain the myth that shapes its national identity: the myth of Israel’s insecurity.

That myth comes out clearly in Bergman’s conclusion: Israel will attack Iran because of a “peculiar Israeli mixture of fear -- rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive -- and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.”

Fear of what? Defend against whom? It doesn’t really matter. Israeli political life has always been built on the premise that Israel’s very existence is threatened by some new Hitler bent on destroying the Jewish people. How can Israel prove that Jews can defend themselves if there’s no anti-semitic “evildoer” to fight against?
I think they have decided it is the Muslims and they want the same Muslim hate coming from us here in the US. We really need to look for and expose the motivations of those that are supporting such a campaign of hate.

I googled "list of organizations promoting Muslim hate and found the following article to be very informing ...
http://stopaipacforpeace.blogspot.com/2011/09/fear-incand-role-of-aipac-in.html
(Excerpt)
The Center for American Progress is a large organization that has the ear of at least a segment of the US establishment, especially within the Democratic Party. So we are happy that the well-funded anti-Muslim disinformation campaign is exposed in this venue. The Center is getting attention and in return they are getting flak from the Extreme-Right, which means must be doing something right.

We do believe that this report did leave something important out, namely the support AIPAC has given to the anti-Muslim movement in America. The report lists the key "scholars" who create the myths and those media and religious leaders who promote the myths. Not mentioned is the support they have received from aipac, an organization that helps these players gain credibility they would otherwise lack. For example, it lists Rev. Hagee and his Christians United for Israel organization and its responsibility for promoting anti-Muslim hate themes, but it does not mention the symbiotic relationship of this organization and aipac over the years, starting especially with providing Hagee with an opportunity of being a keynote speaker at the 2007 AIPAC policy conference and continuing even now, as several AIPAC leaders were present at the CUFI conference (that featured Glenn Beck, a key media backer of Islamophobia listed in Fear Inc report). Several other major players identified in the Fear Inc report were prominent in the CUFI event. (I wrote about it here, and you can see a chilling account of the event right here) Not only did aipac leaders featured prominently at the event, but so did the Israeli government, with the presence of Michael B. Oren, Israel's ambassador to the United States and Prime Minister Netanyahu via satellite.

The "scholars" listed in the report have also found support from aipac. For example, Steve Emerson was one of those whose extremism was part of the 2010 AIPAC Policy Conference. As a final example of many, just this year the aipac policy conference featured Douglas Murray, a British supporter of the "English Defence League", a fascist group of anti-Muslim street thugs.


NYT Hypes Israeli Attack on Iran ... Continued
So here is Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, talking to Bergman about Iran’s “desire to destroy Israel.” Proof? Who needs it? It’s taken for granted.

In fact, in accurate translations of anti-Israel diatribes from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there’s no mention of destroying or even harming Jews, nor any threat of war. There’s only a clear call for a one-state solution: replacing a distinctly Jewish state, which privileges its Jewish citizens and imposes military occupation on Palestinians, with a single political entity from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.

Guess who else called for exactly the same resolution to the conflict: the most renowned Jewish thinker of the 20th century, Martin Buber. Plenty of Israeli Jews keep Buber’s vision alive today, offering cogent (though debatable) arguments that a one-state solution would be in the best interests of Jews as well as Palestinians.

Yet Ronen Bergman and the editors of the New York Times Magazine see no need for their readers to encounter these facts.

Nor do they see any need to mention the most important fact of all, the one most flagrantly missing from Bergman’s long article: No matter what Iran’s leaders might desire, it’s beyond belief that they would ever launch a single nuke against Israel. They know full well that it would be national suicide. Israel has at least 100 nukes, and 200 or more by many estimates, all ready to be used in a counterattack.

Which makes it hard not to laugh when Bergman reports Ehud Barak’s other arguments for attacking Iran. Even if Iran doesn’t intend to kill all the Jews, “the moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same.” That’s the foolish “stop a Middle East nuclear arms race” argument we hear so often coming out of Washington, too -- as if Israel had not already started the Middle East nuclear arms race decades ago.

And how can a supposedly serious journalist like Bergman solemnly repeat the latest popular argument of the Iranophobes: A nuclear-armed Iran (in Barak’s words) “offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies,” Hezbollah and Hamas. That “would definitely restrict our range of operations” in any war against those so-called “proxies.”

As if Iran would even consider committing national suicide to serve the interests of any Lebanese or Palestinian factions.

Yet the myth of “poor little Israel, surrounded by fanatic enemies bent on destroying it” is so pervasive here in the U.S., most readers might easily take this Iranophobic article at face value, forgetting the absurd premises underlying all arguments that Israel “must” attack Iran.

What American readers think is key here. Most Israelis do believe that (as Bergman puts it) Israel needs “the support of other nations to survive.” It’s a crucial piece of their myth of insecurity. And the only nation that really supports them any more is the U.S. So Israel won’t attack Iran without a green light from Washington.

Bergman glibly asserts that there’s some “unspoken understanding that America should agree, at least tacitly, to Israeli military actions.” For years, though, a torrent of reports from Washington have all agreed that both the White House and the Pentagon, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, would refuse to support an Israeli attack on Iran. The consequences for the U.S. are too drastic to even consider it. Why should that change now?

Bergman’s article ignores the obvious answer, the most crucial missing piece in his picture: Barack Obama wants to get re-elected nine months from now. Despite what the headlines tell us, he doesn’t really have to worry about pleasing hawkish Jewish opinion. Most American Jews want him to work harder for peaceful settlements in the Middle East.
Really? Then they should tell AIPAC to back off and they should stop sending money to AIPAC ... official representatives of the Zionists.

What Obama does have to worry about is Republicans using words like these (which Bergman tucks into his article as if he were paid by the GOP): “The Obama administration has abandoned any aggressive strategy that would ensure the prevention of a nuclear Iran and is merely playing a game of words to appease them.” Only a dyed-in-the-wool Iranophobe would believe the charge that Obama is an “appeaser,” but we are already hearing it from his would-be opponents.

Obama also has to worry about fantasies like the one Bergman offers (apparently in all seriousness) of Iranian operatives smuggling nukes into Texas. Republicans will happily spread that story, too.

All of this could be laughed off as absurdity if the American conversation about Israel were based on reality. Israel, the Middle East’s only nuclear power now and for the foreseeable future, is perfectly safe from Iranian attack. Indeed, Israel is safe from any attack, as the strength of its (largely U.S.-funded) military and the history of its war success proves.

But as long as the myth of Israel’s insecurity pervades American political life, an incumbent desperate to get re-elected just might feel forced to let the Israelis attack Iran. The only thing that would stand in the way is a better informed American electorate. Apparently that’s not what the New York Times Magazine sees as its mission.
Ira Chernus


Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Read more of his writing on his blog. Contact him at chernus@colorado.edu
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......
Posted: 2/7/2012 5:28:11 PM

Leon Panetta (Y'know the head of the CIA?) has publiclly said that Iran isn't trying to build a a nuclear weapon.
Personally, it wouldn't matter to me if Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon ... they have a right to defend themselves.

They are a signatory of the NPT but anyone in their right mind knows that none of the nations who signed on to that who have Nukes have ever really gotten rid of any. It's a frigging joke. Based on that ... I think it's just fair for Iran to also have something to protect (in reality, prevent) from having anyone drop one on them.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Would you have voted for OBAMA if .......