Obama: This isn't your 'run-of-the-mill recession'

Status
Not open for further replies.
LuciaDisturbed said:
Maria...quit it with your doomsday and failure crap. Obama hasn't been in office long enough for anything to really take effect. It's going to take TIME. Be patient and stop talking about doomsday and failure. :roll:

Lucia, I don't appreciate with the way how you want to tell me to quit my voice. I have the rights to withstand my statement concernin' my opinions/viewpoints. I don't care if, Obama hasn't been in office long enough.

If you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to see what doomsday really is, watch DEEP IMPACT. That shit will make you shit your pants, Maria. We are NOT facing THAT, so...quit it. :roll:
Click to expand...

That movie, Deep Impact is nothin'. I've seen it before. I KNOW what's worse THAN that.
 
Last edited:
Reba said:
Why? Why should we support legislation and executive orders that are bad for our country?

When Bush was President, suppose he had a plan to start a war with Iran. Would you have wanted his plan to fail or succeed?
Click to expand...

Problem with that one is, he didn't have a viable plan for ending it. A "plan" includes a beginning, the steps to achieve a goal, and the means for arriving at that goal (an end).
 
jillio said:
Problem with that one is, he didn't have a viable plan for ending it. A "plan" includes a beginning, the steps to achieve a goal, and the means for arriving at that goal (an end).
Click to expand...
Do you see the word "suppose"? That means it is a hypothetical statement. The question wasn't about the merits of a particular plan. The question was about whether or not an American should support a President's plan, good or bad, just so the President can "succeed." I say no. Americans should support the plans (legislation) that are best for the country.

Americans shouldn't be concerned about whether or not a President "succeeds" or "fails" (what does that really mean anyway?). Americans should be concerned whether or not his orders and the legislation he supports are good for the nation.

When Bush made executive orders or supported legislation that I thought was bad for our country, I said so. It wasn't important to me whether or not he was personally "successful."

The position of President isn't supposed to be a resume builder position, or a set up for the next presidential campaign. It's the real thing.

If Obama doesn't want to "fail" then he needs to be behind legislation that will benefit the USA. It's up to him.
 
Reba said:
Do you see the word "suppose"? That means it is a hypothetical statement. The question wasn't about the merits of a particular plan. The question was about whether or not an American should support a President's plan, good or bad, just so the President can "succeed." I say no. Americans should support the plans (legislation) that are best for the country.

Americans shouldn't be concerned about whether or not a President "succeeds" or "fails" (what does that really mean anyway?). Americans should be concerned whether or not his orders and the legislation he supports are good for the nation.

When Bush made executive orders or supported legislation that I thought was bad for our country, I said so. It wasn't important to me whether or not he was personally "successful."

The position of President isn't supposed to be a resume builder position, or a set up for the next presidential campaign. It's the real thing.

If Obama doesn't want to "fail" then he needs to be behind legislation that will benefit the USA. It's up to him.
Click to expand...

How would you define a President's success if not by what is good and beneficial for a nation?
 
jillio said:
How would you define a President's success if not by what is good and beneficial for a nation?
Click to expand...
You need to ask those posters who see "success" for the President as meaning getting things done his way, period.
 
Reba said:
You need to ask those posters who see "success" for the President as meaning getting things done his way, period.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that? The Republicans have clearly shown that they have no interest in working with Obama to achieve anything. Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Commerce. Republicans are already calling Obama a failure.

I would prefer that Obama get things done without congressional Republicans standing in his way like a bunch of crybabies.
 
jillio said:
Kind of like Bush did?
Click to expand...
If people supported him for that reason, then they were wrong.

I supported the things that Bush did right for the country, and I didn't support the things he did wrong for the country. I would expect Americans to do the same thing for Obama. Support the things he does right for the country, and don't support the things he does wrong for the country.

I realize that we don't all agree on what things are "good" or "bad" for America.
 
BradB08 said:
What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
What's wrong? It means that you put Obama above your nation.

The Republicans have clearly shown that they have no interest in working with Obama to achieve anything.
Click to expand...
If and when Obama comes up with something that will work for America, then the Republicans will support passage of his ideas. Why should they support something that won't work? Just because Obama says so from Mount Olympus? I don't think so.

...I would prefer that Obama get things done without congressional Republicans standing in his way like a bunch of crybabies.
Click to expand...
In other words, Republicans should just roll over for Obama, no matter what.
 
Yes they should because they won't work with him otherwise.

Anyone who supports the obstructionist Republicans should be asking themselves what Republicans have done for this country the last 8 years. If they have ideas, why aren't they presenting them instead of trying to shoot down Obama's ideas?

The Republicans are the ones that put partisan politics above the good of the nation.
 
Maria said:
That movie, Deep Impact is nothin'. I've seen it before. I KNOW what's worse THAN that.
Click to expand...

If u know something, then it is your obligation to share it with the govt to warn them.
 
I know that Bush isn't true republican due too much spending, he's seems more like conservative democrat to me, similar to LBJ.

Back in 80's, we had recession in early 80's, during Reagan admin and economy went boom in after 1983 until late 80's then stock market was crashed and economy was in sour until around mid 90's, it was at time when republican tookover congress and economy is really mixed up when came with other parties.

Now, I don't think it has too much from president, except for spending and that's reason because I don't consider Obama's package as success or fail.
 
I remember the stock market crash of 1987. I was in 11th grade at the time and we discussed the crash in my Problems of American Democracy class. From what I remember, my teacher did a good job of explaining the implications of what happened. Of course, it doesn't compare to the stock market crash that occurred not too long ago.
 
BradB08 said:
Yes they should because they won't work with him otherwise.
Click to expand...
So you expect Congressmen to vote for a plan that they know is harmful to the nation just so they appear cooperative?

Anyone who supports the obstructionist Republicans should be asking themselves what Republicans have done for this country the last 8 years. If they have ideas, why aren't they presenting them instead of trying to shoot down Obama's ideas?
Click to expand...
Republicans ARE presenting alternative plans, and I even posted one of them. Apparently some people are not paying attention.

BTW, why do you call Republicans "obstructionist" just because they don't agree with Obama? Did you call Democrats "obstructionist" when they didn't agree with Bush?

The Republicans are the ones that put partisan politics above the good of the nation.
Click to expand...
No. Republicans want to protect our citizens from a plan that is bad for the nation. If the Republicans produce a better "package" than the current one, will Democrats support it for the good of the nation?
 
Reba said:
BTW, why do you call Republicans "obstructionist" just because they don't agree with Obama? Did you call Democrats "obstructionist" when they didn't agree with Bush?
Click to expand...

You do have a valid point there, Reba.

Personally, I think the Republicans are doing their best to work with Obama. If that had not been the case, Obama would not have appointed several Republicans to his Cabinet.
 
The Republicans have clearly shown that they have no interest in working with Obama to achieve anything. Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Commerce.
Click to expand...
Brad, do you know why Gregg withdrew?
He withdrew because the Democrats were whining about BO putting a Republican in the position and he could not align himself with what BO is doing and support his decisions.
The Dem whining was because of a push to redistrict voting areas to give the Democrats an unfair advantage for # of members in congress and they knew Gregg would not allow it to occur - they had to get rid of him.

I would encourage everyone to look past the MSM sites and really research what the language of these bills is, research the underlying political movements.

I research everywhere for the truth of matters and do not trust the liberal run media.
 
ASLGAL said:
...I would encourage everyone to look past the MSM sites and really research what the language of these bills is, research the underlying political movements....
Click to expand...
I should slap myself for not knowing this but what is an "MSM" site? :giggle:
 
Sorry Reba, MSM "Main Stream Media"

BTW, love your new avatar, is that you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top