calfoxwc Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 Of course it does. But Sev and Heck thinks he's doing a wonderful job. Reality bites, eh? Why all the cya and coa over Obamao? and you'd think Biden would be a laughing stock with libs... but no, that ridicule is only for any Republican on the national scene. And the libs whine about not being able to have serious non-partisan conversations. Par for the course. Too bad. We could use their non-existent honesty to set our country on the right path. ***************************************** http://www.gallup.com/poll/150230/Obama-Job-Approval-Average-Slides-New-Low-11th-Quarter.aspx October 21, 2011 Obama Job Approval Average Slides to New Low in 11th QuarterPrior low was 45% in his seventh quarter by Jeffrey M. JonesPRINCETON, NJ -- President Barack Obama's 11th quarter in office was the worst of his administration, based on his quarterly average job approval ratings. His 41% approval average is down six percentage points from his 10th quarter in office, and is nearly four points below his previous low of 45% during his seventh quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 personally I'm not getting too confident. They stretched out the war just long enough that they could have a big celebration right before the election! And you can bet the media will downplay afghanistan until after the vote. And let's be honest, we all love to assassinate terrorists. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 21, 2011 Report Share Posted October 21, 2011 I'd give the president different marks for different areas. Overall, I'd say I'd give him a C+/B-. I'd give the Republicans in Congress a well deserved F. And Steve, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions. The Status of Forces Agreement that we're abiding by today was negotiated by - you guessed - George Bush in 2008. He's the one who set the timetable for us to leave by the end of 2011. The immunity that our soldiers had from Iraq prosecution? That ran out at the end of 2011. Something that was also negotiated by ...George Bush in 2008. You want to retract the idea that the Obama administration "stretched out the war just long enough that they could have a big celebration right before the election!" Because it's not true. Also, the end of 2011 is a little over two months away. The election is 12 months away. If they're trying to time it to be "right before the election" they're doing a pretty lousy job. Funny thing is: I bet if I asked you if we should be withdrawing our troops, you'd agree that we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Cal, I dont really care about what the general public "thinks" the general public at large is stupid.... I hate polls, they generally measure emotion not analytical/critical thinking. Obama is only one part of the system and I never believed in miraculous conception nor did I ever think that Obama was going to be able to turn the gigantic mess around in 3 years. By and Large he has done better than good in my opinion, To measure results by general public emotion is silly.. Osama Killed In Pakistan Major Banks are stabilized and growing Wall street is trading over 11k Corporate profits are healthy Total Pullout of Iraq Discrimination in the military is ended 401k and other retirement funds are largely restored more consumer protections are in place health care is at least on a starting path of being corrected Iran/North Korea/Russia rhetoric has died down the middle east is growing in its democratic desire (Egypt,Lybia,Syria) without us invading..... Major Trade Agreement with South Korea, Columbia and Panama I would say that's all pretty good in 3 years since the debacle of Bush Jr. funny here the real queston.. I bet you are not worried about the banks closing down, or Wall street crashing, or another depression, or another war..... Its great the biggest problem we have now is growth...... I love how people forget just how bad it really was to politicize a party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 I enjoyed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Osama Killed In Pakistan. FINE. But it was George Bush's structure and policies SINCE 9/11, that finally led to it. But I give credit to Obamao for making the decision. Any of us could have done that. Major Banks are stabilized and growing MY bank was fine the whole time. Never had a problem. Wall street is trading over 11k NFL. Not for long unless Obamao is sent packing in 2012. Corporate profits are healthy Not when corps are taxed out the wazoo in a hissy fit of socialism, which won't happen unless the dirtbag gets re-elected. Total Pullout of Iraq THAT is Bush's policy all the way. Heck even admitted it. So? Congrats to Obamao for following BUSH's IRAQ WAR POLICY. Discrimination in the military is ended BS. They just ended BILL CLINTON's DADT. Now the subtle discrimination REALLY BEGINS. But, you've never been in the service. You don't know diddley. 401k and other retirement funds are largely restored. BULLCRAP My 401K loses, gains, loses, gains, now it's jost lost. more consumer protections are in place. MORE gov regulation that is going to come back and bite us all in the buttuskies. health care is at least on a starting path of being corrected STARTING PATH??? It is a gigantic cowpie of legislation that even a good number of Dems are now backtracking on. And you wait for the Supreme Court to rule, shall we? Iran/North Korea/Russia rhetoric has died down NK leader died. Russia is cranking up, per Putin and medwhatever his name is going agressive and nasty towards the West. And IRAN? You can't possibly be serious. the middle east is growing in its democratic desire (Egypt,Lybia,Syria) without us invading..... Major Trade Agreement with South Korea, Columbia and Panama. You are putting lipstick on a pig, Sev. Egypt is going anti-Israel, anti-Christian, anti-Democracy in a huge way. Dream much? Lybia... maybe. Ever give credit to Bush for dreams of democracy in Iraq ? Come ON, man. Seriously, Sev. You are cherry picking pieces of bark around a gigantic decayed pine tree of a pres admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 And Steve, don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions. The Status of Forces Agreement that we're abiding by today was negotiated by - you guessed - George Bush in 2008. He's the one who set the timetable for us to leave by the end of 2011. The immunity that our soldiers had from Iraq prosecution? That ran out at the end of 2011. Something that was also negotiated by ...George Bush in 2008. I love it when the guy who once said he'd rather have Shep in the white house than W now uses the former president as the gold standard for military policy. Then again the anti war cry wasn't a part of Bush's campaign. Funny thing is: I bet if I asked you if we should be withdrawing our troops, you'd agree that we should. A long time ago. Then again I was more on the side of Rumsfeld's get in and get out plan than the boots on the ground for years gang. And Afghanistan is a rat hole. I can't imagine the outrage on the left had McCain done that. And apparently it's a war crime to waterboard a terrorist but not to assassinate one. Ya can't tell the hawks from the doves without a program. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted October 22, 2011 Report Share Posted October 22, 2011 Cal, I wont argue point by point with you because its personal opinion and each person will attribute value differently. I know in three years a LOT has been done.... who gets credit/blame etc is really not important to me. What I do know is when a company is going down in flames and three years later that company is now looking at growth as the main problem something is on the right track. That is exactly what is happening to our company now, typically in a corporate setting that new leadership is hailed as stabilizing the ship. Growth and strategies for growth can ONLY occur if the ship is stabilized..... which means in 3 years something was accomplished because clearly we HAD a very unstable situation. Cal growth problems are typical and can be solved, we should be celebrating that we have the opportunity for growth instead of faced with the situation of descending chaos and value........ This is not a political position for me, rather a objective view of the overall scenario. IF this was a republican leadership/third party/ aliens I could care less. The reality regardless of how you want to frame or anchor your opinion/positions is that looking for growth is a GOOD problem to have versus looking at ways to stop a sinking/burning ship. We are not burning down like Greece with no prospects of growth..... We in fact are leading in Web Technologies (the future) and still have the most stable consumer demand/ transportation/energy infrastructure in the world. We will grow its a matter of how and what we do to protect the system against over indulgence which is the real fight. Those that are responsible Government/Corporations do not want to be curtailed in any way and right now the magnification glass is on both of them and they are busy pointing the fingers at each other when in fact they are both complicit. Who cares about public emotion..... we need to stay focused on the problem, which is the money from corporation flowing into government which makes both sides represent each other and not us. Accountability for both is the key not this political positioning that we get sucked into PR based talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 It is a war crime to water board a terrorist. It's in the Geneva Convention. It's international law. And it's not a war crime to kill a terrorist on the battlefield, which is basically anywhere they go. That's the law, too. Congress passed it after 9/11. Maybe it seems counterintuitive to you, but it's not. Both things are true. But let's try and nail you down here. You just accused Obama, as you often do, of making decisions for strictly political reasons. I showed you why that's not true, and that we're just following the Status of Forces agreement from 2008. So ...were you wrong? Steve? Retract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Obamao is a complete poiitical hack, a manipulative, arrogant, Napoleonic, ignorant rabble rouser. It doesn't matter the issue, he can flip it anytime it will benefit him. And yes, what he does IS political. It's who he is ... he is THAT corrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 But seriously, Sev. Just two links to articles from Drudge: Bank Predicts Another US Downgrade -- In Just Few Weeks... EU 'bank failures will crash Wall Street'... wouldn't you retract your "major banks are stabilzed and growing" thing? We are in big, big, serious trouble. And putting lipstick on a pig is ignoring the damage that this street organizer punk is doing to our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Cal, Those are both just op eds, and the one is talking about potential EU banks not ours..... So no i dont see a need to retract. As for your other op ed piece that points to a congressional stand off for political reasons.... Just like the other reason the downgrade happened..... Republican obstructionism to further there "starve the beast " tactics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 It is a war crime to water board a terrorist. It's in the Geneva Convention. It's international law. And it's not a war crime to kill a terrorist on the battlefield, which is basically anywhere they go. That's the law, too. Congress passed it after 9/11. Maybe it seems counterintuitive to you, but it's not. Both things are true. But let's try and nail you down here. You just accused Obama, as you often do, of making decisions for strictly political reasons. I showed you why that's not true, and that we're just following the Status of Forces agreement from 2008. So ...were you wrong? Steve? Retract? Of course not. Lefties(including you iirc) demanded action against the previous administration. I never heard the chant "stay the course." And you hated Bush. And which of the terrorists we've assassinated lately were in the act of war? Good riddance just don't be such a blatant hypocrite. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007> WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 You're a very strange man. The assassinations you speak of were authorized a week after 9/11. The bill was called "The Authorization for Use of Military Force," and it passed both houses of Congress with every member supporting it but one. Every drone strike in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc., every special ops or CIA mission, every cruise missile we fire, is governed and authorized by this act of Congress. Bin Laden, Al-Alwaki, attacks on the Haqqani network, on the al-Shabab network - it's all authorized by this act of Congress. The one that declared war on Al Qaeda and its affiliates. Are you really disputing this? If you're talking about Libya, you're talking about executive powers, not Congressional. I might agree with you about the need for him to have gone to Congress with this, but nobody has paid attention to the War Powers Act for decades. And most members of Congress, despite the occasional grumbling, like it that way. Because then they don't have to take a vote on things that can come back to bite them. They can cheer when we succeed and point fingers when we fail. As for your retraction, I wasn't holding my breath. You said it was political, then were shown how it wasn't political, and that it was the same policy from the Bush era. Then you claimed they were timing it to the election, which is bizarre since we're a year out from the election, and the timing wasn't set by Obama, but by Bush. To you, along with Obama's campaign promise to end this particular war (while promising to escalate the other) all of this proves it was all political. Even though the basis for claiming it in the first place is clearly false. But if you want to, and clearly you do, you can believe that Obama really wants to continue fighting the Iraq War and thinks it made for great policy, but is going to draw our troops down anyway because he's entirely about politics. It'd be dumb to so - Obama clearly did not believe in fighting the war nor occupying Iraq were in our best interest - but what can I do about it? Clearly nothing. You're still too upset that people you don't like thought Bush was a lousy president - because he was a lousy president - to think clearly about anything. No matter what we talk about, you're still mad that some lefty said something mean about Bush six years ago. For instance, I "demanded action against the previous administration", whatever that means. Yes, like ending the War in Iraq responsibly. Ending the use of torture as an official American policy. And that's what we did, and that's what we're doing. Yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 As for your retraction, I wasn't holding my breath. You said it was political, then were shown how it wasn't political, and that it was the same policy from the Bush era. Yay. I posted the quote. Obama was lying or stupid. Your call. As far as having his hands tied by the Bush administration (which he ran against) he was trying to postpone that albeit unsuccessfully. So your guys "pivot" to the fulfilling a promise cunard. We get it. Personally I don't fault him but just remind you that your team would scream bloody murder if McCain were the headsman. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I love when I have to abide by your ridiculous options. I see this quote as typical campaign fare, and something he ended up making good on. I don't see where the lying or stupid comes in. It's a typical campaign statement. And we'd be mad if McCain ended the war in Iraq a year before his term was up? I believe we'd be happily stunned and surprised if McCain, the man who said he was content to be in Iraq for 100 years, had ended the Iraq War with a year to go in his first term. As for the middle part, this is hysterical. First, you accuse him of ending the war now for political purposes. Now you're saying he wanted to stay longer but the Iraqis wouldn't sign off on troop immunity, so we have to leave now and we're pretending to be excited. So which is it? Is he a craven political monster who wanted this to happen, or is he the man who was bucking his base and public opinion and trying to negotiate a longer stay? It can't really be both, unless you're just trying to ding him for whatever he does, even when you agree with it. But that's Mitt Romney's job, not yours. Personally, if they reached an agreement to keep a 3,000-4,000 troops there to train Iraqis, I wouldn't have minded so much. (There will be lots of American contractors who remain, after all.) But we can't stay without immunity for our troops. Our military has said so plainly and repeatedly. And the Iraqis - whose decision this is, not ours - don't want to give that immunity to us. So we have to leave now. Any president, under the Status of Forces Agreement, would have to pull the troops out now. This is the stuff called "reality" that you dismiss so you can insert your opinions about what a cynical asshole everyone else is. This war is hardly finished anyway. It's just entering a new chapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Steve, are you going to admit you were wrong about this? "They stretched out the war just long enough that they could have a big celebration right before the election!" There's simply no evidence for this at all. Not that they "stretched it out." Not that they timed it so they could have "a big celebration right before the election." All the evidence shows that Obama was simply following the Status of Forces Agreement that we signed in 2008, and the timeline it spelled out: “All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, waters, and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.” Will you admit this? It shouldn't be that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I love when I have to abide by your ridiculous options. I see this quote as typical campaign fare, and something he ended up making good on. I don't see where the lying or stupid comes in. It's a typical campaign statement. And we'd be mad if McCain ended the war in Iraq a year before his term was up? I believe we'd be happily stunned and surprised if McCain, the man who said he was content to be in Iraq for 100 years, had ended the Iraq War with a year to go in his first term. As for the middle part, this is hysterical. First, you accuse him of ending the war now for political purposes. Now you're saying he wanted to stay longer but the Iraqis wouldn't sign off on troop immunity, so we have to leave now and we're pretending to be excited. So which is it? Is he a craven political monster who wanted this to happen, or is he the man who was bucking his base and public opinion and trying to negotiate a longer stay? It can't really be both, unless you're just trying to ding him for whatever he does, even when you agree with it. But that's Mitt Romney's job, not yours. Personally, if they reached an agreement to keep a 3,000-4,000 troops there to train Iraqis, I wouldn't have minded so much. (There will be lots of American contractors who remain, after all.) But we can't stay without immunity for our troops. Our military has said so plainly and repeatedly. And the Iraqis - whose decision this is, not ours - don't want to give that immunity to us. So we have to leave now. Any president, under the Status of Forces Agreement, would have to pull the troops out now. This is the stuff called "reality" that you dismiss so you can insert your opinions about what a cynical asshole everyone else is. This war is hardly finished anyway. It's just entering a new chapter. I can almost guarantee that within 2 years after we leave Iraq, the government falls to some pro Shiite sect. Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Iraq's Prime Minister is already a Shiite. Does that count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Iraq's Prime Minister is already a Shiite. Does that count? Are you really as ignorant as you seem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 The country is 60% Shiite. It's leader is a Shiite. For you to warn that the government might fall to "a pro-Shiite sect" seems a little strange. It's already pro-Shiite. Many of our problems with Al-Malicki were based in the idea that he was more concerned with his Shiite factions than the nation as a whole. If you're asking if some Iranian group is going to take over, no, I don't think that's going to happen. If you're talking about a militant sect or a radical sect, I think it's possible, but unlikely. They usually don't want to run things because then people realize how useless they are when it comes to things like keeping the water flowing and the lights on. So, if that's what you mean - a radical, militant Shiite sect - I'll take that bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 Steve, are you going to admit you were wrong about this? "They stretched out the war just long enough that they could have a big celebration right before the election!" There's simply no evidence for this at all. Not that they "stretched it out." Not that they timed it so they could have "a big celebration right before the election." All the evidence shows that Obama was simply following the Status of Forces Agreement that we signed in 2008, and the timeline it spelled out: “All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, waters, and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.” Will you admit this? It shouldn't be that hard. Steve? If you want to ding him for something, why not that he really had nothing to do with the timetable, and the most he did was not alter the timetable we'd already agreed to? Why would you ding him for trying to time it to the election, which is unsupportable? Why would you ding him for "stretching out the war just long enough" which is also not supportable? Why would you ding him for making a campaign speech about wanting to bring the troops home and end the Iraq War when that's the policy he was advocating in the campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 It doesn't matter what Obama says he has proven to be A LIAR. Just look at how Obama, Holder and the rest of his thugs have LIED about project Gun Walker where they sold guns to the Drug Cartel and in turn had one of our border patrol agents murdered. Obama FAILED his oath of Office and has Failed every US citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 27, 2011 Report Share Posted October 27, 2011 Steve? If you want to ding him for something, why not that he really had nothing to do with the timetable, and the most he did was not alter the timetable we'd already agreed to? Why would you ding him for trying to time it to the election, which is unsupportable? Why would you ding him for "stretching out the war just long enough" which is also not supportable? Why would you ding him for making a campaign speech about wanting to bring the troops home and end the Iraq War when that's the policy he was advocating in the campaign But of course, as we all know, that was not the policy he advocated during the campaign. I gave you the quote, but you're write that of is just more campaign b******* that we should all learn to accept. And though I expect you to deny it now, I recall you being upset with the policy as it dragged on a couple of years ago. And, let's be fair, he didn't want to keep that policy even in the last couple weeks. Apparently, the iraqis forced our hand. I fully expected to see an american contingent stay there for many years. I'm surprised the we now have no base in iraq. But to be fair, who the hell knows? I have absolutely no doubt that there are plenty of things going on that we have no clue about. As long as the situation does not deteriorate too badly, and as long as they keep selling oil in us dollars, I guess we have just about all we should expect. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 27, 2011 Report Share Posted October 27, 2011 Steve, try again. The reasons you accused him of ending the Iraq War when he did were both wrong. Clearly. They're factually incorrect. Do you retract them? Address this. As for the quote, I don't get what you're saying there either. Are you saying he didn't advocate ending the Iraq War during the campaign? That can't be it. He clearly did. Are you saying that quote is a statement of specific policy that he went back on? I don't see how it's that either. I don't know what your problem with that quote is. It's a campaign statement laying out his intent to end the Iraq War. "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007> ...What part of this is even strange? What's got you so upset about it? He's saying he'll bring the troops home from Iraq when he is president. And that's what he wanted to do. And now they are. I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2011 Obama said he would do it when he became president. But he followed Bush's plan perfectly, about three years later. If you were any more dense, Heck, we could feel sorry for you. I respect Steve for trying to get you to come out of your fog. The rest of us see the fog from a distance - Heck sees it in his mind. Which, btw, how did Heck ever get here in the first place? He isn't even a Browns fan, I think. My guess is Shep pleaded with him to come and bail HIM out.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted October 28, 2011 Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 Steve? Have you run from this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2011 Yes, Heck. You do this stuff for a living, right? You figure out how to sway independents like Steve for the next election cycle? That's why you refuse to smell the Obamao stink? You should go stay with the stinkin marxist occupiers a while. That will make you finally get the idea that your paycheck is not worth tossing your honor and Americanism into the garbage, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 Steve? Have you run from this one? IOW pull a Heck? Nope. I gave you the quote. OK you say it was a campaign lie. Fine. Lets pretend he actually believed it at the time. Boom. You're president and have both houses. You pick your defense team. Maliki wants us out years ago. I have no doubt that had we asked we could have bailed the first week regardless of any "waaaaa look what Bush made me do." Esopecially knowing we'd get jack shit. No base nothing. He did not leave. In fact he tried to negotiate for even a longer stay. And failed. So I'm not buying it. I know you wanna pretend he's Patton, beither do you. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.