What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
It’s entirely relevant.

No it's not. It may be relevant to some discussion somewhere but it is not relevant here and now. You have said the US government can't ram things through against the will of the people. You are wrong. I have shown how you are wrong and like your Liberal buddy Joey, you are trying to move the goal posts. That tactic doesn't work very good when involved in discussions with me (in case you haven't noticed).

Tell you what, let's just agree that you were wrong by suggesting the government can't go against the wishes of the people and then we'll move on....





...there, wasn't that easy.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
He was booed and laughed at throughout no matter how immature he acted. You think the people were going to let Barney continue to spout off his liberal agenda.

Really EagleSmack? You live in Massachusetts, so are you ready to make a prediction that Barney Frank will be defeated in 2010?

You do make me laugh!

If you think that people laughed and booed at him, then you should confidently be able to predict that he will lose in 2010? Do you dare to make such a prediction?

You have no clue on politics here in the US and now you have no clue on how politics are here in Mass.

Frank allowed a prostitution ring to be run from his apartment and was reelected in a landslide. Do I think that he is vulnerable? Hardly. Frank represents the people of Newton which is a hot bed (ha ha) of Liberalism here in Mass.

Could it be that only the right wing extremists, Republican far right base, Linden La Rouch supporters (I understand quite a few of them were present at the meeting, warmly welcome by the far right Republican nut cases) were the only ones who booed?

Really...interesting. Wonder where you get your info. :roll:

Are you saying that Frank’s constituency has turned against him? If so, then you should be confidently be able to predict that he will lose in 2010. Will you make that prediction? I will hold you to it.

This is where you get a YAWWWWWWWN

We have no Republican representation. Mass is a Liberal State rife with corrupt liberal pols who get elected each and every time. I am surprised anyone even campaigns here during a Presidential election. It is a sure thing for the Dems year and year out. We've only had Republican Govs from time to time.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I addition... Barney's classless behavoir just goes to show you... he isn't sweating any reelection.

Hes got a seat for life if he wants. Newton Mass... a seat for life.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Cannuck, any legislation passed by the United States Congress using normal channels is consented to by a majority of representatives, therefore representing a majority of American voices. Therefore, such decisions are made with a mandate and with the consent of the American people. I have aready discussed how the circumstances surrounding the GST implementation by Mr. Mulroney were unique, no amount of dancing is going to change that on your part.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Cannuck, any legislation passed by the United States Congress using normal channels is consented to by a majority of representatives, therefore representing a majority of American voices. Therefore, such decisions are made with a mandate and with the consent of the American people. I have aready discussed how the circumstances surrounding the GST implementation by Mr. Mulroney were unique, no amount of dancing is going to change that on your part.

So you are saying that everything George Dubya did was in accordance with the wishes of the American people? You are embarrassing yourself.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: Twisted Words

So you are saying that everything George Dubya did was in accordance with the wishes of the American people? You are embarrassing yourself.

Perhaps we should review the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government.

The ‘embarassment’ is not mine, Cannuck. I would encourage you to debate with integrity.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Governments absolutely can act against the wishes of the people, the elected representatives

You have something there, FiveParadox. In fact, I will go one step further; sometimes government must act against the wishes of the people. If each and every decision is taken according to the opinion polls, then it is not representative democracy, it is mob rule.

In a democracy, representatives (senators, MPs etc.) are elected to govern. At the end of their term, people pass judgment on them. But until then they must govern the best they know how, and that is not always by listening to opinion polls.

People are fickle, they can change their minds on a dime. Thus at one time, more than 90% of Americans supported Iraq war, Bush had an approval of more than 90%. Then people changed their mind.

Just as Bush would have been wrong to govern by opinion polls, same way Obama would be wrong to do so. Since Democrats have the votes, my hope is that they apses some kind of health care reform, and then let people pass judgment on them in 2010.

In my opinion, Democrats have a much better chance of keeping the control of Senate and House with health care reform than without it. Republicans are aware of that, that is why they are opposed to any change in the health care system. They are hoping for a repeat of 1994, when Democrats failed to do anything, and as a result lost control of House and senate.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
Really...interesting. Wonder where you get your info.

EagleSmack, about Linden La Rouch supporters being in the audience? From CNN. CNN didn’t say it, but I assume it must have been quite a love fest between the extreme right wing Republican nut base and Linden La Rouch supporters.

Frank represents the people of Newton which is a hot bed (ha ha) of Liberalism here in Mass.

Really? Then,

He was booed and laughed at throughout no matter how immature he acted. You think the people were going to let Barney continue to spout off his liberal agenda.

Then who were these people? According to you, they were not Frank’s constituents, that is a hot bed (ha ha) of liberalism.

Do you seriously doubt that they were rent a mob, probably bused from outside, agitators bused in just to cause trouble, to disrupt the meeting? Same as La Rouch supporters? Frank dealt with them properly, he gave as good as he got.

You seem to contradict yourself. You claim that Newton is a hot bed (ha ha ) of liberalism and in the same breath you claim that people booed and laughed at him. No doubt the right wing extremist, rent a mob laughed and booed (that is what they probably do for a living).
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
Perhaps we should review the separation between the executive and legislative branches of government.

We? You can do whatever you feel you need to do to move the goal posts again. I've come to expect it.

The ‘embarassment’ is not mine, Cannuck. I would encourage you to debate with integrity.

Integrity? Is that Latin for moving the goal posts? It must have been very nauseating for you (as a card carrying Liberal) to type the word "integrity". Perhaps you should go and have a lie down to get over that sickening feeling. I'll be back after golf.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I'm talking about who really is to blame, not who you wish was to blame. Americans believing it was Bush doesn't make it so.

Really, Extrafire? And who decides who is to blame, do you decide that? Now, we know that you don’t think Bush is to blame, and you are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn’t mean everybody has to agree with you. In my opinion, Bush and the Republicans shoulder the lions’ share of the blame.
Evidence, SJP, that's what determines blame. ANd you know who is to blame, you just WANT Bush and Republicans to be at fault.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Really...interesting. Wonder where you get your info.

EagleSmack, about Linden La Rouch supporters being in the audience? From CNN. CNN didn’t say it, but I assume it must have been quite a love fest between the extreme right wing Republican nut base and Linden La Rouch supporters.

A CNN... the Voice of Ted Turner and Liberalism. No wonder their ratings stink.

Frank represents the people of Newton which is a hot bed (ha ha) of Liberalism here in Mass.
Really? Then,

He was booed and laughed at throughout no matter how immature he acted. You think the people were going to let Barney continue to spout off his liberal agenda.

Then who were these people? According to you, they were not Frank’s constituents, that is a hot bed (ha ha) of liberalism.

I am sure they were. Barney Frank... our Brothel House Congressman doesn't get 100% of the vote everytime he runs for office. But the esteemed Madame from Newton gets the majority and that is enough.

Do you seriously doubt that they were rent a mob, probably bused from outside, agitators bused in just to cause trouble, to disrupt the meeting?

Yes i do until you can show me how they were paid. Until then this "rent-a-mob" Democratic Party line is laughed at. What sheep.

Same as La Rouch supporters? Frank dealt with them properly, he gave as good as he got.

Of course... he is an arrogant Liberal, Champion of the Housing collapse and Owner of a Male Brothel and still gets elected. he can do and say pretty much what he wants. It's Massachusetts don't you know.

You seem to contradict yourself. You claim that Newton is a hot bed (ha ha ) of liberalism and in the same breath you claim that people booed and laughed at him.

Yeah... what a contradiction. :roll:

Fact- He was booed
Fact- Barney represents Newton the hotbed of Liberalism.

No doubt the right wing extremist, rent a mob laughed and booed (that is what they probably do for a living).

What did they get paid again?
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Actually it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait. Bush Sr. invaded Iraq,

Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, and no, Bush sr. did not invade Iraq. With UN approval (very important), Bush invaded Kuwait to drive Saddam out. In that he succeeded with flying colours.
Bush Sr. went into Kuwait to liberate it from the invaders. And he also invaded Iraq, but didn't take the whole country because the UN said to stop. That was a big mistake. If they'd finished the job then, the current mess would have been unnecessary.

and yes he did browbeat and bully SOME nations to get support, not the whole world or the UN.

The Kuwait mission was approved by the UN, Extrafire.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. The UN is not some infallible group of superior beings who preside benignly over the affairs of us lesser mortals. It is comprised of separate nations, and for the UN to approve anything, it must have the votes of these member nations. So if the US puts enough pressure of one kind or another on enough of these little guys, they get the vote they want. I reallize you're probably too young to have paid much attention to editorial comment at the time, but there was comment to that effect.

Clinton? no, he didn't, but there was talk of illegality at the time.

Sure there was talk of illegality by the Republicans. Republicans are natural war mongers; they have not come across a war they did not like. The only exception was Serbia. Since Republicans did not start the war, they were against it. Republicans like to start the war themselves, then they are for it.

Clinton had got the support and approval of NATO, there was no talk of illegality (except the political, partisan talk by the Republicans).
Let's see, when the Democrats get involved in a war the Republicans talk of illegality. And when the Republicans get involved in a war, the Democrats talk of illegality. Notice a pattern here?
I don’t think US needed any country to actually participate in the bombing, I think many NATO countries did provide secondary support. If there had been a ground operation (and I was surprised that Serbia capitulated after bombing, I thought ground operation may be necessary), I assume other NATO counties would have contributed troops.
Dream on.
Incompetance?

Bush incompetent? Isn’t that blasphemy?
It appears you have short term memory problems. I have mentioned more than once that in my opinion, Bush was incompetant as president. Mind you, the way the Obama presidency is shaping up, Bush might start looking better and better.

But he didn't go it alone. Other nations are there too.

Only other nation which participated to any appreciable extent was UK (and for that Tony Blair paid political price at home). A few other nations contributed token troops and mouthed platitudes in support. Most of the world (including Canada) was adamantly opposed to Iraq war.
I'll take that as an acknowlegement of mistake on your part.
Nor does it mean that it's the wrong thing to do.

Depends upon the situation, Extrafire. In the case of Iraq it was the wrong thing to do.
My point exactly.
4000 dead in 7 years of war? They lose that many in 2 years of peace time training accidents.

Really? If 4000 dead mean nothing or very little,
I didn't say that. Once again you distort my words to dodge the point.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Indeed EqgleSmack, the same Barney Franks (except that he was not responsible for sub prime fiasco, that was the doing of Republicans and your idol, Bush).

Barney Frank was the QB. Forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. That's our Barney!

The one whom you and other Republicans hate with a passion, who makes you apoplectic, foaming at the mouth.

He makes us laugh in hysterics and is great fodder for many jokes.

The one who does not apologize for his liberalism,

He doesn't apologize for even running a prostitution ring from his apartment either!

who is not afraid to take on the rent a mob, yahoo hate mongers who attend the Town Halls with the single purpose of trashing, destroying the meeting.

What are they paid again?

That Barney Franks, whom you wish would be gone, but keeps coming back again and again like a bad penny, and gives you and other Republicans nightmares.

When Barney goes it will be a sad time because he is a poster boy for Liberal arrogance and debauchery.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
So say you. I've heard no such claims by Republicans. I have heard that about Canadas stimulus though. Do you have them confused?

No Extrafire, YOU have them confused. Around 10% of stimulus money had been spent as of early August. Republicans made this very point, they claimed that since very little stimulus money was being spent, that means that the recent sign of recovery cannot be attributed to the stimulus spending (most economists disagree with Republicans, of course, but then Republicans are only familiar with voodoo economics).

Anyway, according to an independent source, about 10% of money has been allocated as of August. And Republicans have made this claim many times.

By early August, nearly six months after the $787 billion stimulus package was signed, Recovery.org had recorded 23,160 active projects for total of $74.82 billion.

How Stimulus Money is Being Spent: Tracking Stimulus Spending Using an Independent Source | Suite101.com

So as I said you cannot speak from both sides of your mouth. Anyway, what this means is that stimulus spending will continue for the next two years, feeding money into the economy. That may lead to sustained recovery.

How about that? SJP taking the same position as the Republicans! I never thought I'd live to see that day!:lol:

I don't, that's you.
That was in refference to your accusation of me taking two opposing positions, that economic uptick was due to government infusion of money, and that very little government money had yet been spent. Only the first position is mine, the second is yours.
Well, I agree that stimulus has helped the economy. Evidently so do you, you said so in one of your earlier posts.

Though others have pointed out that signs of a recovery are evident, I am still pessimistic. That up tick is likely due to the infusion of government money in the corporate bailouts and "stimulus" spending.

That is you speaking (from the other side of your mouth).

So make up your mind, get your line straight. Did Obama’s stimulus package help the economy or didn’t’ it? I think it did, but you seem to be confused.
My post is very clear, any confusion must be yours. Maybe if I spell it out a bit more, your feeble brain will grasp it. The infusion of government money results in an uptick in economic activity. THis uptick will only last as long as the money from the government keeps flowing. When it stops, economic activity will revert to its former level, as in the case of the "cash for clunkers" program which ends on Monday. That is my position and my only position. You invented a second position and attributed it to me. That's the type of tactic by one who can't win on facts.
No, I'm not even American.

I know that Extrafire, but in heart, spirit and mind you are a Republican. At least you thin like a Republican.
You are not privy to my thoughts so you have no idea how how I think. In fact, deducing from your posts here, I would venture to say that you have no idea how a Republican thinks either.

But just for your elucidation, I will reveal my basic thought process; I think like a moderate conservative.
Forget inventing positions for me and just answer my post.

But as I said, you seem to be confused. Are you giving Obama the credit for revitalizing the economy or are you not (like your Republican friends)? If you are giving Obama the credit (as you evidently are), that means that Obama revitalized the economy with a small amount of money. So does that mean that pumping money into the economy for next two years (I assume it will take that long to spend the stimulus money) help stimulate the economy for the next two years?
No, I didn't think you could present a credible critique.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Talk is cheap, EagleSmack. Put up some numbers. According to latest poll I saw on CNN, Obama’s approval rating was around 56%, comparable to what Bush and Clinton had at this point in time (I think CNN said that it was slightly higher than that for Clinton, but I am not sure).

Anyway, what does your Republican pollster, Rasmussen says? Has Obama sunk lower than Bush’s all time low (low 20s) yet?
At the same time as Bush's approval was in the low 20's, the democrat controled congress was in the mid teens.

But in any event, approval of his job as prez is dropping. People like him, personally, he's a charismatic guy. But they're getting less and less enamoured of his performance.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).
Of the priorities outlined by the President earlier this year, 40% of voters say cutting the deficit is most important. Twenty-one percent (21%) believe health care should be the top objective. While deficit reduction is seen as the most important, 67% say it is the least likely to be achieved.
Thirty-three percent (33%) of voters now believe the economic stimulus plan has helped the economy. That’s up from 25% a month ago.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That figure has stayed in a very narrow range between 47% and 51% every single day for more than a month. That range covers just two points above or two points below today’s rating. Prior the July 8th, the President’s approval rating had never fallen below 52%.
Fifty percent (50%) now disapprove.
Fifty-two percent (52%) of women approve while 54% of men disapprove. For more measures of the President's performance, see Obama By the Numbers and recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.
In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
CNSNews.com - Conservatives Now Outnumber Liberals in All 50 States, Says Gallup Poll
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
A CNN... the Voice of Ted Turner and Liberalism. No wonder their ratings stink.

Sure EagleSmack, as a Republican, you would naturally think that CNN is the spawn of the Devil. However CNN is internationally respected news organization. The same cannot be said of FOX, which is a mouth piece for the far right base of the Republican Party. I wouldn’t believe anything I see on FOX unless confirmed by an independent source, such as CNN. I would have no problem believing CNN.

Of course... he is an arrogant Liberal

You mean that Frank did not buckle under the hate filled braying rants of Republican rent a mob.

Fact- He was booed
Fact- Barney represents Newton the hotbed of Liberalism.


Fact – many extreme right wing organizations are systematically working to destroy the institution of Town Hall.

Fact – many of them (including Linden La Rouch) were probably represented at the Town Hall meeting.

Fact – Frank gave as good as he got.

What did they get paid again?

They got paid, not in the form of money, but in the form of ideology.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Again, that is your opinion, that Bush is blameless.
THat is not my opinion and nothing I've posted would suggest that. The evidence indicates that Carter and Clinton are much to blame. Many others also share blame, including Bush.
Many economists and many Americans disagree with you.
Again, them believing it doesn't make it so.