Amazing how that works, eh?
i suppose that I ought to know better than to have a discussion with a 5 year old
i suppose that I ought to know better than to have a discussion with a 5 year old
Is Obama the worst president ever?
- Thread starter sombraa110
- Start date
After 100 days if Obama isn't responsible, they he ought to be replaced with someone who will take responsibility and get something done. As I have mentioned before, Obama has a majority in goverment and cannot do anything. Obama has his own agenda and getting the people back to work is not one of his priority's. He angers them with health care reform, new banking regulations etc. The average citizen who is out of work could care less about Obama's reforms at the moment.
I am still 100% confident that if a disaster is about to hit a major US city with the potential for significant loss of life of the citizens he is supposed to be leading, the President should show leadership. If he doesn't, he should be ridiculed for being an irresponsible coward and driven out of DC as a failure of a human being. Sort of like what happened to Bush.
It's a grown-up job for grown-ups, and the buck stops at the White House.
It's a grown-up job for grown-ups, and the buck stops at the White House.
He has his chance right now. There's a major environmental disaster off the coast of Louisiana. An offshore drilling platform burned-down and has sank to the ocean floor - there is a 20 mile-wide oil slick that is growing by the minute and if it lands on US shores, it will devastate the entire coastline and the wildlife.
To my knowledge, Obama isn't on the ground in LA directing FEMA or any other crews in a manner that you expected of Bush.... Based on your above contribution, I'm thinking that you'll be the first to ridicule Obama for his lack of leadership, irresponsibility and cowardice.
Absolutely. I've been the first one to hammer Obama for not improving regular communication between the White House and state and local officials in disaster preparedness. The oil rig explosion is not the same scale as Katrina, but I'll go with it.
A better example would be yesterday, a tornado destroyed a large portion of Yazoo County, Mississippi. The Gov. of Mississippi was there right after the tornado struck, but where's Obama?
I forgot to add: I'm impressed with the scope of your response... It's not often that one is exposed to objectivity and rational discourse in our world of partisan politics.
My hat's off to ya
For a man preaching "responsibility" to Wall Street, he sure does fail to take responsibility for his own administration. Seems as though the Obama administration is still in the habit of blaming Bush, and Americans are tired of it. In fact 66% of Americans believe that Obama should start taking responsibility. That's not going to happen any time soon. Deities are not to blame. Sometimes you just have to step up and take responsibility, I know that is not liberal trait.
It doesn't matter for 100 days, even after 100 years, Obama will be never responsible for the Bush meltdown. Obama will be judged by how he cleans up the Bush mess, but only the most extreme of partisans will blame him for the Bush meltdown, whether 100 days pass or 100 years.
As to not getting anything done, it is the Republican strategy to filibuster anything Obama proposes. But I do hope Democrats bring the Wall Street reform to vote, and make Republicans spend several days filibustering it. If Republicans are established as the friends of Wall Street, that will help Democrats big time.
Same with immigration reforms. It probably will be filibustered, but democrats probably will bring it to the vote and show the Hispanics just exactly how anti-Hispanic Republicans are. That should help Democrats with Hispanics.
This near the election, it is all politics.
Last edited:
And indeed Bush was ridiculed. He could not run for election again, but Republicans paid dearly for it in 2006 and 2008.
You are changing the subject here, we are talking of passing the Wall Street reform. Democrats are for it, Republicans are against it, they want to protect their Wall Street buddies. People support reforming Wall Street, they support the Democratic position over the Republican position.
That is why I do hope Democrats bring it to the vote and force Republicans to filibuster it with endless debate (reading the New York phone book during the debate and so on). Democrats should do all they can to establish in people's minds that Republicans indeed are trying to protect the Wall street from any reform.
Oh, well. Most grownups go through that experience sometime or other. Us kids can be quite aggravating sometimes.
Last edited:
I'll agree. That's what I meant when I said that potus should offer support. But I don't agree that disaster management experts should take direction from a politician.
What filibuster, who did it? Both parties have that option, but none have done it yet. Liberals submit to threats to easily.
"Fiscal conservative my ass."
And he increased depletion allowance corporate welfare to the oil companies.
And he increased depletion allowance corporate welfare to the oil companies.
I'm abstaining till Obama's finished.
This is like saying a guy is great because he accomplished blank, or else failed because he screwed up blank.
Wit till the dood's done before figuring out if he did a crappy or good job.
This is like saying a guy is great because he accomplished blank, or else failed because he screwed up blank.
Wit till the dood's done before figuring out if he did a crappy or good job.
Senator McConnell has threatened a filibuster to stop the Wall Street Reform bill. My opinion is that Democrats should call his bluff and force Republicans to actually filibuster the Wall street reform, not just threaten it.