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  > Obama is an utter failure.      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 52
Obama is an utter failure.Page 3 of 43    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
I still can't figure out why you blame Obama for this bill.

He didn't send it to the Hill; he opposed it; he negotiated a weaker version in return for his signature; he attached a signing statement to it declaring that his administration would not be using the powers the Bill gave his office.

I can certainly understand why you don't like the Bill. But nothing in it comes from the President.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 53
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/15/2012 11:45:46 AM

Therefore, your beloved POTUS could have vetoed the bill should he have chosen to.

Look at the votes. They had a veto-proof majority. So Obama had two choices: he could have vetoed the Bill, which would have then gone back and gotten the 2/3's necessary to override the veto. So that would have been a pointless gesture. Or he could negotiate to weaken the Bill in exchange for his signature. He chose the latter course.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 54
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/15/2012 1:24:22 PM
Okay, you think he made the wrong choice - a symbolic gesture would have been the right thing to do, in your opinion.

But Obama has always been completely pragmatic - and a compromiser. He didn't stand up for the public option in his health care bill; he has always given ground on pretty much everything. This is completely in character with his entire term.

But even if you think he made the wrong choice (there weren't any good choices - either make a small difference but give up the moral high ground; hold the moral high ground, but only at the cost of making Americans even more vulnerable to abuse of power), I still don't see how this is his fault. All he could do was make the Bill a little bit better; he didn't support it and has pledged not to use the powers.

How did he break his word or lie to anyone? He did the best he could in a bad situation. Sort of how it's been ever since he inherited the mess from his predecessor.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 55
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/16/2012 1:34:59 PM
quote] And if they can't argue Obama's success then they personally attack anyone who points out his Failures....

Funny that the people who attack president Obama from the extreme-right wing side try to attack him using the excretions from their verbal diarrhea because the facts can't help them to make a congruent discourse.

If I was a capitalist Repugnican I would shut my trap and use my time to count the money I am making thanks to president Obama. Consider that the Dow Jones Industrials Average is 62% above the disastrous level that their Bush boy left for president Obama to deal with. I would be saying: "Thank you very much, president Obama. Please keep on making things better for us."

Just so you can get a better picture of the economic facts as they relate to the presidents in the last 20 years, I will give some numbers that you can check for yourself.

When president Clinton took office in 1993 the Dow was at 3,242. When he left office in 2001 the Dow was at 10,587. That was an increase in value of 226% during his eight years in office, and was only 10% below the peak closing of 11,723 on January 14, 2000.

When president Bush took office in 2001 the dow was at 10,587. When he left office in 2009 the Dow was at 7,949. That was a decrease in value of 25% during his eight years in office, and was a stunning 44% below the peak of 14,164 on October 9, 2007.

So, today the Dow is almost at 12,000 thanks to the steady hand of president Obama handling the economy in a way that allows the country to overcome the difficulties without grave disruptions or violent upheavals.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 56
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/16/2012 4:55:09 PM

Holy Derp Batman, I think I have just read the most retarded thing on the web.


I agree that the post shows total lack of understanding of how to assess the market's performance.

Just a correction to my last post: I incorrectly wrote that today the market was approaching 12,000. The correct figure is 13,000. The percentage by which the Dow average has increased during the Obama administration was correctly calculated.

I was comparing apples to apples, using the figures from the first day in office and the last day in office for the last two presidents. Anyone who can use his/her brain should be able to figure out that the numbers for president Obama may still change since he is still in office, but his numbers are looking very good.

Perhaps I should calculate the numbers taking into account the lowest numbers reached by the Dow average to see how much of a recovery was accomplished during a president's administration. I suspect that the comparison will still show that Bush was a total failure compared with president Clinton, and president Obama will look a whole lot better than Bush.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 57
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/17/2012 4:24:02 AM

If not a soul every views a single video I ever post, I beg of you all to view this one, even if its the first and last, I beg you to


It must really hurt when one totally loses all credibility, that not even begging will result in anyone else paying attention to the posts including links to videos or other paraphernalia. I am guessing that too many incidences of cutting and pasting unread articles forwarded by misterious puppeteers can have a deleterious effect on someone's reputation as a contributor on the debates in the forums.

For all we know those links may contain video clips unseen by the poster, the usual dis-information hoaxes, totally mis-understood information, or even worse, they may contain viruses that will subject our computers to cyber attacks.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 58
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/18/2012 9:43:02 AM

You know, after a decade of blogging, one would think that I would have grown leather thick skin, but I just cant seem to..
Humiliating and hurtful attacks such as these cant be dismissed just because its not done face to face.
I doubt anyone would say such vicious things to another human whom they've never met..but hate does that..


There was nothing personal in what I wrote, and I don't hate anyone.

Everything I wrote in my post is based on the experiences I have had in the discussions in the POF forums. I won't bore anyone listing all the details because I'm sure that the readers here are familiar with the facts. In my view, you need to re-gain some credibility by engaging in serious discussion in your posts. It entails recognizing when someone gives you correct information, or present reasonable argument to sustain your position.

For example, you are attacking president Obama's performance using the Dow numbers from the November 2008 election day:


Obama has lorded over the worst stock market performance in the history of America for a new president. Its an unprecedented 28% drop from Obama’s election to today.


The problem with that assertion is that you are trying to fudge the figures in order to assign blame to president Obama for the failures of the previous president. Bush was in charge while his friends were trying to cause as much damage as possible to the economy before president Obama would take office in January 2009.

To make things clearer for you: if you would like to give responsibility to president Obama for the November 2008 drop in the market on election day and the days after the election, then you would have to give credit to president Obama for restoring the market using the lowest figures reached in the days after the election and before January 20, 2009. Would that be fair enough for you?
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 59
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/24/2012 3:17:11 PM
You know who else was a corporal?

Sorry, but I just had to Goodwin this thread. You've got one loony corporal and somebody here says that we're in danger of having a military coup if the nearly-as-loony Ron Paul isn't elected President. You've got a big military down there - odds are that a few of them are going wear tin foil hats under their helmets.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 60
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/24/2012 3:49:40 PM
I think that Ron Paul should be questioned by the serious media about his ties to this loony toon and his comrades. There should be no place for politicians who aspire to lead this country to be fomenting sedition and acts of violence against elected government officials.

Any soldier who would even for a second entertain the idea that his/her vote should carry more weight than the vote of any other citizen is a traitor to this country.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 61
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/24/2012 4:25:28 PM
Kokesh sounds like a prime candidate for section 8. Plus some posters are delusional- your country was on the verge of collapse when Obama came into office. He has done an ok job, given what he had to work with.
The only thing more pathetic than Ron Paul are his supporters.
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 62
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/24/2012 6:22:44 PM
Ron Paul is not even a blip on the radar, that is why he gets little 'face time'. The claim that the majority of the armed forces support RP is completely unfounded. This is based on what? You tube videos and Facebook? Critical thought is a good thing.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 63
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/25/2012 1:12:29 PM

Simply put, the republican party, the only true alternative to the democrats, keeps alienating voters, hispanics on the immigration issue, people of color on the poor issue, labor on the auto bailout issue, women on the contraceptive issue and a host of others.


Both parties are alienating their base , but Democrats have lost more of their own by a 2:1 margin these past years compared tp Republicans. Democrats still outnumber Republicans by a more than 3:2 margin, but Republicans have still won elections regularly, & people still vote for them despite this lopsided Democratic advantage, because the Democratic Party equally alienates a totally different bloc of voters on a whole different set of issues than the ones which are dear to YOUR heart.




Voters leaving Republican, Democratic parties in droves
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY Updated 12/22/2011 8:40 PM

WASHINGTON – More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow.

A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.

The trend is acute in states that are key to next year's presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats' registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans' by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.

The pattern continues a decades-long trend that has seen a diminution in the power of political parties, giving rise to independents as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and the popularity this year of libertarian Republican Ron Paul.

"The strident voices of both the left and the right have sort of soured people from saying willingly that they belong to one party or the other," says Doug Lewis, who represents state elections officials. "If both sides call each other scurrilous dogs, then the public believes that both sides are probably scurrilous dogs."

Registered Democrats still dominate the political playing field with more than 42 million voters, compared to 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents. But Democrats have lost the most — 1.7 million, or 3.9%, from 2008.

Democratic registration has fared worse than Republicans in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — the eight swing states with party registration. Republican losses are biggest in Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-22/voters-political-parties/52171688/1



Mitt the front runner, has yet to achieve 50% in any state.


....which is quite normal for any contest with 3 or more contestants.

Same thing happened to John Kerry in 2004, when he had to compete against Wesley Clark, John Edwards, & Howard Dean. It was the same dog-and-pony show with a new frontrunner every few weeks. Kerry was hard pressed to get more than 40-50% with that crowded field.

Once the dust settled & others dropped out, the frontrunner emerged & absorbed the majority of support from the others. No different than today's GOP field of candidates.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 64
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/25/2012 2:30:09 PM
...which is equally on par with the Democrat's debates and primary process dominated & run by the New England/California liberal left.

Howard Dean & John Edwards were chastized & cast as "Rockefeller Republicans" by their own, because they were not 100% dyed-in-the-wool limousine liberals. They were somewhat generally overall moderate, fairly socially liberal, & somewhat fiscally conservative, like an old school Rockefeller.

They were smeared to hell in a handbasket by the fringe liberal wing because they were not what they wanted to represent them - Kerry was the perfect example of their dream candidate. Perfect example of what you said above: "....pushed the candidates so far from the mainstream, that they will not be able to recover the middle ground.". I see it plain as day.

Do you not wonder why, or better yet, how, Kerry ended up with the nomination AND still ended up losing to Bush(with that 3:2 Democratic voter edge)??


Admittedly republicans turn out better than democrats, but in this year, with the issues in such stark differences, republicans will lose turnout, democrats if only because the republicans hold such extreme views, will turn out to keep them out of th White House!


With the independents growing exponentially at the expense of both the Democrats & GOP, it seems they hold the key to which party prevails. I agree, whoever clamours for the extreme position of their party will suffer the backlash, because neither party seems to have enough clout to hold their own without the determining factor of a growing moderate independent movement changing their game plan!



 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 65
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/26/2012 12:40:06 PM


There should be no place for politicians who aspire to lead this country to be fomenting sedition and acts of violence against elected government officials.


This by far, is the single most shocking statement Ive read in weeks.
Have you any education in US History whatsoever?

Lincoln:
'This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

Thomas Jefferson
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


Interesting to see that you using the names of revered US historical figures to foment sedition involving whacko politicians and undisciplined former soldiers.

Just a couple of points:


This by far, is the single most shocking statement Ive read in weeks.


Why is it so shocking? Do you believe in the concept of the Permanent Revolution? Are you ascribing that idea to Lincoln and Jefferson? Are you sure that you understand the historical context of when and why they said what quoted in your post? Now, be careful because we have seen you fall apart when your knowledge has been questioned.


Have you any education in US History whatsoever?


Probably not as much as you, since I wasn't born or educated here. I spent almost 40 years working since I came to this country and didn't have much time to spend learning about some of these issues. However, I know when I can smell the foul odors of manure being mixed with the facts of history. Without knowing enough to definitely state that you are writing falsehoods, I just ask questions just to make sure that you know for certain the facts that you write about.

The first one about Lincoln is easy:


'This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."


Did you miss the sentence "Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it?"

It seems to me that Lincoln, by listing it first, said clearly that the people have a constitutional right to change the government. That right is clearly spelled in the Constitution.

The second point about the Jefferson Quote about rebellion:


What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.


Is clear to me that Jefferson said that violent rebellion against an oppressive government is a price that the people will pay for their liberty. However, I am not sure if Jefferson said that after the United States had adopted the Constitution, or before. Do you know for sure when he said that? If he said that after the adoption of the Constitution, then I would agree with you that Jefferson would be in support of the seditious activities of any disgruntled politician or traitorous soldiers.

If not, meaning that Jefferson said that before the Constitution was adopted, then you should refrain from using Jefferson's name to support the seditious activities of those traitors who think that they have a higher right than the people of the United States to determine the course that the government must follow.

What do you have to say?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 66
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 2/27/2012 1:29:07 PM

Did you miss the only alternative he gave when said action was not available?


Who says that the right to amend the Constitution is not available now? I know that it isn't easy to achieve an amendment, it is a lot of work. Maybe that's the reason the whackos are talking about violence and revolution, they are just lazy as.es that would like to spout sh.t and try to scare the gullible.


or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.


The people have that right when the government ceases to be the government of the people, by the people , and for the people. However, this is not the time. The people still have the constitutional right to vote for their representatives in Congress and for the President and Vice-President.

Those who are sowing the winds of violence and destruction shall reap the storm coming back their way.


Grasping straws.
But I'll be a doll and provide you with as many other similar instructions by other US Founding Fathers, as if it were necessary


Not grasping at anything. I didn't ask you about other US Founding Fathers. You were using a quote from Jefferson, so I ask you a question about the date and context of that quotation. I guess that you don't know that information and are too lazy to inform yourself, or don't want to embarrass yourself by having to recognize that once again you are wrongly manipulating historical facts just to spaout manure against President Obama.


I can do this for days, but is it really necessary?


No, it isn't. What is necessary is for you to become a bit less disingenuous in your posts.

Just answer the question about the date and context of the Jefferson quotation that you posted and check if he said that before of after the adoption of the US Constitution!
 part deux
Joined: 11/11/2008
Msg: 67
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/5/2012 7:46:11 PM
I think there might be a few parents/spouses with a nicely folded flag in their closet that may take umbrage to your interpretation of 'service' DA.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 68
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 9:06:23 AM
Yes, I have served.
I've served 6 times, in various jail cells across this nation, fighting for their voices.
And I'll serve again, every single time our governmental officials arrest me for speaking on behalf of the United States Armed Forces


Six times! Whatever happened to three strikes, you're out? Six times! And you go around bad-mouthing president Obama being a dictator and other garbage that you post in here. Right there you have enough proof to defeat your claim. I am sure that if you had been doing that during Bush regime, your as. would have been sitting on a jail bench a while longer.

The time and resources from the Police Department that you are waisting could be used for more pressing issues instead of trying to accommodate your need to fake a revolutionary spirit "on behalf of the United States Armed Forces." I hate to think of a sorrier state of affairs befalling our Armed Forces when they would need help from someone who can only cut and paste disjointed rants in the forum section of a dating site.

By the way, that quote from Jefferson is definitely from before the signing of the U.S. Constitution. Jefferson moderated his view on the need for violent rebellion as the means to change the government because the U.S. Constitution stipulated the manner in which the government could be changed without resorting to violence.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 69
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 9:59:55 AM
Oy, it is really sad when the republicans are fighting among themselves over who's farther to the right...Romney or Santorum...these two are so NOT presidential material...and yet the evangelical rightwigers see these two as good choices...i read in some other thread where we liberals were going to be trounced in November...and my question is: "By Whom???
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 70
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 11:28:39 AM
While there are a great number of evangelical rightwingers in this country, I'm also sure there are a good number of moderate republicans...and I'm almost as sure these moderates won't make the mistake of voting for someone like Santorum...I'm equally sure the evangelical right won't vote for Romney...so, depending on whom the repuiblicans try to slap against the wall in November determine's which faction of the republican base will forget to vote.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 71
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 4:25:25 PM
Has anyone noticed the hypocrisy of the GOP.... They condemed President Obama on Libya, but are calling for America to invade Iran and get involved in the Syrian conflict....If President Obama said he favored invading Iran or getting involved in Syria the GOP would be against it...
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 72
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 4:44:12 PM
It seems like hypocrisy on the surface, and it is to an extent. But the real reason for the double standard in conflict engagement lies with AIPAC.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 73
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 4:49:33 PM
I fail to see what the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has to do with not invading Iran right this minute or letting Syria solve it's own problems.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 74
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 5:16:41 PM
The point I'm making is that AIPAC does not fail to see the connection.

http://www.aipac.org/en/issues/syria
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 75
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 5:19:05 PM
And the very same issues AIPAC has with Syria didn't exist in Libya???
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 76
Obama is an utter failure.
Posted: 3/7/2012 5:29:26 PM
Check out AIPAC's website yourself. I'm not looking to get into a debate on this with you-- just pointing out the pattern I'm seeing here.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Obama is an utter failure.