What Grade Would You Give Obama for First 100 Days?

[SirJosephPorter]

Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the American political system.

Extrafire, I am already aware of American political system, but thanks anyway for the lesson.

Republicans, mindful of the influence of groups such as ACORN have no hesitation voting against their party if they want to be re-elected.

ACORN is a left wing group; no way they were going to vote Republican no matter what the Republicans did. Anyway, Congressional Republicans were fiercely loyal to Bush. Let me give you two examples.

One of the functions of Congress is to carry out oversight hearings over the President. Democrats routinely carry o out such hearings. They are carrying out such hearing even at present. It is nothing against the President; it is just the job of Congress to carry out oversight hearings.

When Bush was President, the Republican Congress did not carry out even one oversight hearing. They suspended oversight hearings indefinitely. Republicans in the Congress were fiercely loyal to the President.

Another example is the Louisiana Senate election in 2002. Mary Landrieu was the incumbent Democratic Senator (she still is). Her opponent campaigned on one and one plank to her platform only. She said she will support Bush 100% of the time, and she accused Landrieu for not supporting Bush 100% of the time. Incidentally, she almost defeated Landrieu.

The Congressional Republicans were fiercely loyal to the President. During 2000 to 2006, Bush didn’t have to use his veto even once. Congress invariably passed the legislation which Bush would approve. But Bush didn’t even try to fix the subprime debacle; he didn’t even try to prevent the crises. He clearly thought that it was not a serious threat.

 

[lone wolf]

...before I find the post I am interested in.

That shouldn't be hard. It was most likely his anyhow - and soon to be the only one he won't have on Ignore :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Didn't they lose the House in the last midterms?

Indeed, they did, Extrafire, that is why I said Republicans controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006.

They controled the supreme court? How, just by winning the election all the Clinton appointees were automatically off the bench?

You know that is not true. There are only two Clinton appointees, Ruth Bator Ginsburg and Justice Bryer. All the remaining seven justices are Republican appointees. So Bush inherited a Republican Supreme court. However, two of the Republican appointees, Justices Souter and Kennedy, routinely vote with the Democrats. Hence the Republican control of the Supreme Court, 5 to 4.

I may be wrong, but last I heard they still didn't control it.

Indeed you are wrong. As I said, seven out of nine justices are Republican appointees, and five out of those seven are loyal republicans, party faithfuls (incidentally, those five gave the election to their buddy, Bush in 2000).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As for the cause of the meltdown, here's a quote from Thomas Sowell. Go to the link for the complete article.

Well, yes, Thomas Sewell. Yukon Jack already said what I wanted to say (thanks Yukon, for somebody who is supposedly ignoring me, you seem to pay an inordinate amount of attention to me).

Anyway, Yukon said it all. Thomas Sewell is a right wing extremist; he is a regular contributor to Townhall. It is an extreme right wing publication, who used to think that Bush was a faint hearted liberal nanny. Thomas Sewell is that rare breed, a black right wing extremist (sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it, like a Jew Nazi?).

So Thomas Sewell has zero credibility. He has been trashing Obama ever since Obama has been a candidate, and I would be surprised indeed if he says anything complimentary about Obama.

Thomas Sewell is not credible; I would believe him about as much as I would believe the drug addict Rush Limbaugh.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There should be a law banning this leftwing/rightwing nonsense. The "left wingers" who voted in Obama this time were the exact same "right wingers" who voted in Bush last time. People vote for who they think are going to do the best job. Sure there is the incorrigible 10% like S.J. who stick to their wings come hell or highwater.

That is not true, JLM. People who voted for Bush were for the most part totally different from those who voted for Obama. 50% voted for Bush, 53% voted for Obama. What that means is that just 3% of the people who voted for Bush switched to Obama. Out of 47% who voted for Bush, 46% voted for McCain.

So it isn t correct to say that the people who elected Bush also elected Obama. It was the right that elected Bush, the left elected Obama.

 

[Cannuck]

It was the right that elected Bush, the left elected Obama.

That's an overly simplistic view by somebody that views the entire world as right/left.

If I were an American, I would have voted (since 1980)for Reagan twice, Bush Sr once, Perot once, Clinton once, Bush once, Kerry once and Obama. Those in the middle elect Presidents because those in the middle are willing to cast their vote in ether direction.

 

[JLM]

That's an overly simplistic view by somebody that views the entire world as right/left.

If I were an American, I would have voted (since 1980)for Reagan twice, Bush Sr once, Perot once, Clinton once, Bush once, Kerry once and Obama. Those in the middle elect Presidents because those in the middle are willing to cast their vote in ether direction.

WE don't know much about Obama yet but of the others you mentioned Ronnie stood head and shoulders above the rest the them.

 

[JLM]

That is not true, JLM. People who voted for Bush were for the most part totally different from those who voted for Obama. 50% voted for Bush, 53% voted for Obama. What that means is that just 3% of the people who voted for Bush switched to Obama. Out of 47% who voted for Bush, 46% voted for McCain.

So it isn t correct to say that the people who elected Bush also elected Obama. It was the right that elected Bush, the left elected Obama.

I thought in the U.S. they had secret ballots, so it seems strange to me that they are able to track all these individual voters. I would guess if we take John Doe we don't know how he voted in 2004 nor do we know how he voted in 2008. All you have is percentages- they don't equate to individual people.

 

[gopher]

You mean those court records with Obama as an ACORN lawyer are fakes? Those videos of Democrats defending Fannie and Freddie are staged? Carters bill and Clintons amendment aren't really in the government records?

Maybe I should post some of them here and you could point out where they've been faked.

While you're at it, post a few photos of Republican McCain with ACORN, post news of how the Republicans pushed through Gramm-Leach-Bliley thereby creaitng the housing mess, and re-post the blurb from the 9/11 Commission Report that I posted previously which showed Clinton was never offered OBL.

 

[gopher]

Thomas Sowell??

"for many "education" is little more than an expensive isolation from reality”

Brilliant quote.

Sowell condemns welfare but only as long as it benefits the poor. Welfare for the rich is perfectly OK with him. To this day I have yet to see any condemnation of war profiteering or taxpayer subsidization of billionaire sports teams with billion dollar stadiums.

The only people who praise Sowell are like minded wealthy elites. Those with common sense do not view him or his warped views so favorably.

 

[Cannuck]

You're just pissy because Thomas turned his back on Marxism.

 

[Extrafire]

ACORN is a left wing group; no way they were going to vote Republican no matter what the Republicans did.

:lol: Really! Who o' thunk it!

VOTERS (some of whom can be influenced by ACORN telling them that their nasty representative is voting against their possibility of ever owning a home) can and do switch votes. That's what the original bill, the Community Reinvestment Act was for, to win votes. That's why the Clinton administration amended it , to win votes. That's why the Democrats defended it when Republicans tried to repeal/reform it, to win votes, even though they had to know it was doomed.
YouTube - Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

YouTube - The Democrats and Obama caused the financial crisis of 08 by supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and covering up their bad books.

Anyway, Congressional Republicans were fiercely loyal to Bush.

Oh puleeze! And I had such high hopes for you after that well thought out post you made back there. Now you've disappointed me and reverted to type, posting drivell.

 

[Extrafire]

Didn't they lose the House in the last midterms?

Indeed, they did, Extrafire, that is why I said Republicans controlled all the levers of power from 2000 to 2006.

Right. I missed that.

Indeed you are wrong. As I said, seven out of nine justices are Republican appointees, and five out of those seven are loyal republicans, party faithfuls (incidentally, those five gave the election to their buddy, Bush in 2000).

I don't know the makeup of he court so I can't comment on your claim. However, I seem to recall Bush appointing a couple to the Supreme court so that would mean only 3 of those 5 loyals were there at the 2000 election, meaning he didn't inherit a conservative court. Again, I don't know, just going from vague memory. But in any event, they didn't hand him the election. Ever heard of the electoral college? Once again it may educate you to do a little research on the American Electoral system. Bush won that election.

 

[Extrafire]

Thomas Sewell is not credible; I would believe him about as much as I would believe the drug addict Rush Limbaugh.

Even after Yukon predicted it you couldn't resist. :lol:

Drink your Koolaid...

 

[Extrafire]

Re #93.

Extrafire, all reasonable and reasonably informed people know that Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the most highly respected experts of economics.

However, according to SirJosephPorter, he is unreliable, because he happens to be conservative and, sin of all sins, he is a contributor to Townhall.

So, while I admire your effort to attempt to knock some sense into SirJosephPorter's head by giving him a lesson using Dr. Sowell's article, I am afraid, it is in vain.

Any minute now, his post will appear here arguing that - well maybe not in those words - Dr. Thomas Sowell is a bum, because he is conservative and nothing that appears in Townhall deserves any credence.

Or, even more likely, he will give up and ignore your reference to Dr. Sowell, because he knows fully well that he has no ammunition to put up any logical argument, and simply fade in the sunset.

Nice try, though!

He is predictable, isn't he? I figured he might not do it because you laid it out ahead of time, but he did. :lol:

 

[Extrafire]

Thomas Sowell??

"for many "education" is little more than an expensive isolation from reality”

Brilliant quote.

Is it yours? I like it. So true in many cases.

Sowell condemns welfare but only as long as it benefits the poor. Welfare for the rich is perfectly OK with him. To this day I have yet to see any condemnation of war profiteering or taxpayer subsidization of billionaire sports teams with billion dollar stadiums.

Could you point me to a column of his where he's promoting welfare for he rich? Or subsidizing billionaire sports teams?

The only people who praise Sowell are like minded wealthy elites.

Oh, how I wish that were true! I praise him frequently. If that were true I would be a like minded wealthy elite, but alas, I'm only like minded.

Those with common sense do not view him or his warped views so favorably.

Oh yes they do, because his views are eminently common sensical.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Right. I missed that.


I don't know the makeup of he court so I can't comment on your claim. However, I seem to recall Bush appointing a couple to the Supreme court so that would mean only 3 of those 5 loyals were there at the 2000 election, meaning he didn't inherit a conservative court. Again, I don't know, just going from vague memory. But in any event, they didn't hand him the election. Ever heard of the electoral college? Once again it may educate you to do a little research on the American Electoral system. Bush won that election.

Bush appointed two Justices. However, he replaced two Republicans by two Republicans. Incidentally, he replaced the moderate Republican, Sandra Day O’Connor, by the extremist, Justice Roberts. He replaced an extremist, Chief Justice Rehnquist (he tried to prevent the enforcement of civil rights laws in the 60s, when he was young) by another extremist, Alito.

So while it is true that Bush appointed 2 Justices, the Supreme Court was Republican controlled before that. Bush simply replaced tow Republicans by tow more.

And what has Electoral College got to do with anything? When Bush appealed the Florida Supreme Court decision to order recounts to US Supreme Court, the justices voted by a 5 to 4 partisan political vote to hand the election to Bush. Where does Electoral College come into it?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

He is predictable, isn't he? I figured he might not do it because you laid it out ahead of time, but he did. :lol:

Even Yukon Jack can speak truth from time to time. Just because he said it doesn’t make it false.

 

[lone wolf]

He is predictable, isn't he? I figured he might not do it because you laid it out ahead of time, but he did. :lol:

All self-absorbed trolls are predictable. It has something to do with poor potty training I think....

 

[JLM]

He is predictable, isn't he? I figured he might not do it because you laid it out ahead of time, but he did. :lol:

I just did a little reading up on Dr. Thomas Sowell, he has quite an impressive background with more than his share of adversity. Until someone can prove otherwise I'd say he has a lot more credibiiity than his detractors, but as always I'm ready to be proven wrong.