Poll
Question:
With well over 3 years of his reign complete, is O so far better than W?
Option 1: I'm American, and Obama has done better than GWB so far.
votes: 25
Option 2: I'm American, and Obama has done worse than GWB so far.
votes: 5
Option 3: I'm American, and Obama has done neither better nor worse than GWB so far.
votes: 5
Option 4: I'm foreigner, and Obama has done better than GWB so far.
votes: 17
Option 5: I'm foreigner, and Obama has done worse than GWB so far.
votes: 2
Option 6: I'm foreigner, and Obama has done neither better nor worse than GWB so far.
votes: 3
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fpicable%2F2010%2F05%2F16%2F1853460_Formal-President-Bush-vs-President-Obama_620.jpg&hash=8ce55c9ba4eff4a58920bb4f86959f143ac0c9d4)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpunditkitchen.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fpolitical-pictures-adolph-hitler-bush-obama.jpg&hash=a5f01af644930a9d1d452b4712832395e98c01a6)
A better Hitler? Doubtful.
Bush was our Hitler; Obama is our Stalin.
Even despite the much worse situation; better.
Yes, but less effective unfortunately.
Loser.
No.
I'd say yes. Really just as ineffective (or effective given your point of view) but under Obama, I'd say that America's self-image and image to others has mildly improved.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
I'd say yes. Really just as ineffective (or effective given your point of view) but under Obama, I'd say that America's self-image and image to others has mildly improved.
WHile I think that is true, I am not sure it is for any really valid reasons.
Obama has not started any needless (or otherwise) wars. Checkmate.
Quote from: Berkut on April 10, 2012, 11:03:20 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:51:33 AM
I'd say yes. Really just as ineffective (or effective given your point of view) but under Obama, I'd say that America's self-image and image to others has mildly improved.
WHile I think that is true, I am not sure it is for any really valid reasons.
Agreed but nonetheless appears a mark in favor of his presidency.
Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more. It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office. BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.
By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested. I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years. If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.
I disagree, some of our better Presidents such as TR and Clinton have had fairly uneventful administrations.
The world could do with a few uneventful US administrations. So far Obama is doing pretty well dealing with the Hawkish language from the Goptards over Iran.
edit: also Obama did very well to let the French take the lead over Lybia. Not sure that would have been possible for W.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2012, 11:09:38 AM
Obama has not started any needless (or otherwise) wars. Checkmate.
Indeed. Not engaging in mankind's greatest pursuit is a sign of inferiority.
No problem in principle with Bush starting either war but the psot-war strategy in both cases has been terrible and has left America appearing less powerful than it did a decade ago.
Don't know about Bush's domestic record. My impression is that No Child Left Behind has not been very successful and struggling to think of any other major domestic iniatives he put forward in his presidency.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more. It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office. BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.
By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested. I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years. If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.
I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more. It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office. BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.
By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested. I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years. If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.
I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.
Yes, because Obama had a very Republican congress his first two years...
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more. It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office. BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.
By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested. I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years. If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.
I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.
Yes, because Obama had a very Republican congress his first two years...
And how's the last two years been going?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:35:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:30:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:47:08 AM
Obama has avoided Dubya-level fuckups, and he doesn't sound like a moron, so I am inclined to like him more. It's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office. BY this point in his first term, Dubya had gained the admiration of the world for letting OBL successfully attack the US and then forcefully responding to the attack, but had also gotten the US mired down in a war it could have won easily had an incompetent administration not fucked it up so badly.
By comparison, Obama hasn't been tested. I don't think we will really be able to answer this question for another four years. If we end up with a second four years as idle as the first four, then I think we will have to conclude that Obama was a nice guy who should never have been president, and thus inferior to the not-so-nice and not-so-bright guy who, nonetheless, grew into being a legit president.
I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.
Yes, because Obama had a very Republican congress his first two years...
And how's the last two years been going?
Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power. Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:35:15 PM
And how's the last two years been going?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reviewjournal.com%2Flvrj_home%2F2005%2FJul-07-Thu-2005%2Fphotos%2Fstockdale.jpg&hash=c65457f0b1dadfc15cb6daabbcd894438d5a8ac4)
"GRIDLOCK!!!"
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
:lol: Funny.
Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 11:47:08 AMIt's hard to say he is a "better President," though, since he has done very little since taking office.
Stimulus and bailout that stopped the economy's continuing crash (though W deserves some credit for some of the bailouts). The biggest domestic reform since, at least, Reagan.
The only plausible thing I think he could have done more domestically is tax reform/grand bargain. But I don't think that could have been passed by this Congress and I hope he campaigns on it.
In foreign policy the death of Osama bin Laden is an achievement. It's difficult to say, yet, but I think his handling of the Arab uprising's been pretty adept and I think Asian policy in particular's been strong - I'm also delighted with the new focus on Brazil which could be the end of drift in South America.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power. Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
Agreed. Democrats are arrogant, lazy, bad communicators and unable to unite when it matters <_<
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
:lol: Funny.
Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.
Bookmarked.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 12:42:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power. Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
Agreed. Democrats are arrogant, lazy, bad communicators and unable to unite when it matters <_<
Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership: for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was. But no, they were out of control.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
:lol: Funny.
Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.
Bookmarked.
And I bookmark your bookmark. With a fucking fetus in a jar.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 12:42:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Maybe if the Dems had gotten along better during the first 2 years, they'd still have some power. Seems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
Agreed. Democrats are arrogant, lazy, bad communicators and unable to unite when it matters <_<
Pelosi gave a whole speech about that recently.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
:lol: Funny.
Yes we can all have fun when we crop quotes. :mellow:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership: for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was. But no, they were out of control.
I think this is tough. It's easy to say they were wrong. But I think the Administration was staffed with lots of Clinton veterans and the Clintons themselves were advising. I think all of that advice would have been that the White House should let the negotiations happen in public, let Congress take the lead and 'own' healthcare reform and basically do everything to avoid what happened with Hillarycare.
Admittedly I don't think they expected another Kirstol-style 'kill the bill' strategy. But if they'd knocked heads together more then we don't know what would've happened, they may have lost Baucus or Nelson. (Edit: Or of course it could have worked and been passed quicker and communicated better. As I say I genuinely don't know which was right but I think they chose their strategy on this for good reasons.)
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 12:51:37 PM
But if they'd knocked heads together more then we don't know what would've happened, they may have lost Baucus or Nelson. (Edit: Or of course it could have worked and been passed quicker and communicated better. As I say I genuinely don't know which was right but I think they chose their strategy on this for good reasons.)
Rahm Emanuel's departure said it all. If he were allowed to do what he needed to do--hell, if they even bothered to listen to him--things would've turned out differently. They would've been better prepared for the adversarial approach the GOP and the Teabaggers were going to take re: Obama's "illegitimacy".
Sorta like how Haig was pushed out of the Reagan Administration by all of the Gipper's California cronies. The tallest nail always gets hammered down.
AND THE FIRST FUCKER THAT MENTIONS YOU KNOW WHAT GETS A TEMP BAN
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 12:51:37 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership: for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was. But no, they were out of control.
I think this is tough. It's easy to say they were wrong. But I think the Administration was staffed with lots of Clinton veterans and the Clintons themselves were advising. I think all of that advice would have been that the White House should let the negotiations happen in public, let Congress take the lead and 'own' healthcare reform and basically do everything to avoid what happened with Hillarycare.
Admittedly I don't think they expected another Kirstol-style 'kill the bill' strategy. But if they'd knocked heads together more then we don't know what would've happened, they may have lost Baucus or Nelson. (Edit: Or of course it could have worked and been passed quicker and communicated better. As I say I genuinely don't know which was right but I think they chose their strategy on this for good reasons.)
All that sounds like is that they failed to consider that 2008 wasn't the early 90s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
:lol: Funny.
Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.
Bookmarked.
And I bookmark your bookmark. With a fucking fetus in a jar.
I bookmarked your bookmarking of my bookmark. And I raise you two dead cats.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 01:01:13 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:47:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 12:43:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
Sems silly to blame the Republicans for squandered opportunities.
:lol: Funny.
Anyway, won't matter this year, as the Democrats are going to run a fucking train on the GOP in November.
Bookmarked.
And I bookmark your bookmark. With a fucking fetus in a jar.
I bookmarked your bookmarking of my bookmark. And I raise you two dead cats.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F10089639.jpg&hash=fff6b40f134878a36155390fb2830504d025d710)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 01:03:58 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F10089639.jpg&hash=fff6b40f134878a36155390fb2830504d025d710)
Ditto :hug:
I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms. Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash. It seems we all forgot about those.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 02:20:57 PM
I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms. Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash. It seems we all forgot about those.
The deficit remembers the Prescription Drug Program just fine.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 02:20:57 PM
I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms. Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash. It seems we all forgot about those.
The deficit remembers the Prescription Drug Program just fine.
I wonder if his social security scheme would have run into the same hurdles as Obama Care. Ah, well. My dad got a new medication recently. Costs like 1500 for a bottle. Mission Accomplished!
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 02:28:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:25:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 02:20:57 PM
I think Bush isn't give enough credit for his healthcare-reforms. Sure they didn't help or work, but they did spend lots of cash. It seems we all forgot about those.
The deficit remembers the Prescription Drug Program just fine.
I wonder if his social security scheme would have run into the same hurdles as Obama Care.
Of course not. Social Security in the hands of Wall Street? What could possibly happen?
It's not so much that Obama hasn't done as much as Bush, it's just that what Obama did do (saving the world from economic collapse for a little while longer) isn't as sexy as, well, bombing Iraqi children to smithereeens and then declaring the war to be over. And you have to give Obama credit for nailing two (2) crazy maniacs (Gadaffi/Ossama) to Bush's one (1) (Saddam.) And Bush didn't have to spend the first half of his term proving he was American. So I go with Obama. Obama's failures, whatever they may be, were mostly due to a hostile congress.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:27:41 PM
I wonder how successful Dubya would've been if the loyal opposition in Congress wasn't so afraid to offer the slightest resistance in the post 9/11 years to anything the POTUS did, and he had been saddled with as hateful and visceral a Congress as Obama has been.
A garbon says, Obama didn't have congressional opposition for two years. He still didn't get much done.
Later in the two first terms, things would reverse, as you note. Still, Dubya overcame genuine opposition to get his second term, whereas Obama has been faced with Send In the Clowns. I don't know whether this bodes well for Obama's second term, or poorly.
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 02:43:38 PM
Still, Dubya overcame genuine opposition to get his second term, whereas Obama has been faced with Send In the Clowns. I don't know whether this bodes well for Obama's second term, or poorly.
I think he'll do fine, particularly when the masses rise up and kick out the Teabaggers from the House. And we shall LOL mightily.
After all, he's just waiting for his second term to jump all over the NRA.
Quote from: Josephus on April 10, 2012, 02:37:49 PM
Obama's failures, whatever they may be, were mostly due to a hostile congress.
A more realistic explanation might be that Obama lacked the political gravitas to keep Congress in-line. After all, Obama had just as awful a time with the Dem majority as he has now.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:54:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 02:43:38 PM
Still, Dubya overcame genuine opposition to get his second term, whereas Obama has been faced with Send In the Clowns. I don't know whether this bodes well for Obama's second term, or poorly.
I think he'll do fine, particularly when the masses rise up and kick out the Teabaggers from the House. And we shall LOL mightily.
Why would that be the case? Seems like we might just see a re-kindling of an independent Dem congress. Not like they really feel any loyalty to him, especially with Nancy hinting at wanting Hil to run in 2016.
Democrats were more loyal to Bush back in 2002 then they were to Obama in 2009.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 03:01:24 PM
Why would that be the case? Seems like we might just see a re-kindling of an independent Dem congress.
I find that very unlikely if the Dems regain congress and hold the Senate.
Which btw my prediction at this point is that the GOP holds the House, takes the Senate, and Obama gets re-elected. I know this is counter to what typically happens with presidential coattails, but that seems to be where momentum is carrying things.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership: for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was. But no, they were out of control.
Agreed. I think he had policies he could have gotten implemented, but he left it to a bad Congressional leadership, and they couldn't have organized an orgy in a whorehouse.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:58:07 PM
Rahm Emanuel's departure said it all. If he were allowed to do what he needed to do--hell, if they even bothered to listen to him--things would've turned out differently. They would've been better prepared for the adversarial approach the GOP and the Teabaggers were going to take re: Obama's "illegitimacy".
My reading is the Emmanuel was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Picking him for CoS was, IMO, Obama's greatest mistake in staffing.
I remain unconvinced that there is a substantial difference between Barry's big government ideas and George's big government ideas. Obamacare is just the logical conclusion to the Medicare Part D benefit.
In the end, we will have single payer healthcare if Obamacare is declared unconstitutional, because we know single-payer is constitutional. And if this is the best thing Barry can do, it ain't any worse than anything George did. And the things I hoped Barry would do differently than George he hasn't, so eff him with a spoon.
Who is Barry?
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:58:07 PM
Rahm Emanuel's departure said it all. If he were allowed to do what he needed to do--hell, if they even bothered to listen to him--things would've turned out differently. They would've been better prepared for the adversarial approach the GOP and the Teabaggers were going to take re: Obama's "illegitimacy".
My reading is the Emmanuel was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Picking him for CoS was, IMO, Obama's greatest mistake in staffing.
Then again, perhaps there weren't enough Rahm Emanuels in Der Weiss Haus. THAT was the greater mistake. :D
Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
In the end, we will have single payer healthcare if Obamacare is declared unconstitutional, because we know single-payer is constitutional. And if this is the best thing Barry can do, it ain't any worse than anything George did. And the things I hoped Barry would do differently than George he hasn't, so eff him with a spoon.
I think we'll eventually end up with something similar to Argentina: a "universal" government-run healthcare system that is so lousy only the poor will use it, and anyone who can afford to do so will effectively opt out by buying a private insurance plan that is mostly unregulated by the gov't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Actually, I do fault Obama on one particular point, and that was his hands-off approach to Congressional leadership: for somebody coming from Chicago, when it came to Pelosi and Reid, he certainly didn't do it The Chicago Way.
Should've bashed their fucking heads together and told them who the fucking HNIC was. But no, they were out of control.
This, but honestly, I'd fault seeds that were in place prior to 2008. We had the Tea Party nutjobs, and Congress was going to wait to see how they did to gauge how much they could get away with. When the Tea Party did surprisingly well, all bets were off. Compounding it was the fact that Blago and Burris showed you could even put the con back in Congress with enough balls. Mix all that up together, and we've got one of the most self-serving, disloyal Congresses we've ever had. That's why Boehner can't even wrangle the huge Republican majority he's got in the house- they're just completely out of control, and it's not going to get any better until we manage to kick some of the losers out of office.
The trouble with Obama is he's a terrible haggler.
Knowing he faced opposition in Congress he should start his negotiations with something completely to the left, knowing that he'll be forced to compromise with something more in the middle.
Instead he started with something in the middle, and then compromised from there.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:12:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2012, 03:23:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 12:58:07 PM
Rahm Emanuel's departure said it all. If he were allowed to do what he needed to do--hell, if they even bothered to listen to him--things would've turned out differently. They would've been better prepared for the adversarial approach the GOP and the Teabaggers were going to take re: Obama's "illegitimacy".
My reading is the Emmanuel was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Picking him for CoS was, IMO, Obama's greatest mistake in staffing.
Then again, perhaps there weren't enough Rahm Emanuels in Der Weiss Haus. THAT was the greater mistake. :D
Rahm was a strategic genius in 2008, but after that he became a liability to Obama.
That's fine if he's a Congressional leader. But he's a President who already had half the country ranting about socialism because he's passed what was, 5 years ago, a plausible Republican policy.
I actually think the problem with Obama is that he talks the left but actually governs from the centre - which can end up confusing and annoying both, the left think he's spineless and the right think he's too lefty. So in policy terms he wants stimulus but largely made up of tax cuts; he wants health care reform but not single payer. But the language make it sound that, for example, he wished he could go for single payer. I think he should have led the argument for tax cuts - which he always supported - and against the public option - which wasn't what he campaigned for. That way the left may be disappointed - but that could happen because of his policies - but the centre wouldn't think he was yearning for a leftier option.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:43:53 PM
That's fine if he's a Congressional leader. But he's a President who already had half the country ranting about socialism because he's passed what was, 5 years ago, a plausible Republican policy.
I actually think the problem with Obama is that he talks the left but actually governs from the centre - which can end up confusing and annoying both, the left think he's spineless and the right think he's too lefty.
See, Shiv, this is where your over-educated British stoic intellect fails you. You're overshooting.
The problem half the nation has with Obama is because he's black man. Yes, it's actually that fucking simple over here.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:43:53 PM
That's fine if he's a Congressional leader. But he's a President who already had half the country ranting about socialism because he's passed what was, 5 years ago, a plausible Republican policy.
I actually think the problem with Obama is that he talks the left but actually governs from the centre - which can end up confusing and annoying both, the left think he's spineless and the right think he's too lefty. So in policy terms he wants stimulus but largely made up of tax cuts; he wants health care reform but not single payer. But the language make it sound that, for example, he wished he could go for single payer. I think he should have led the argument for tax cuts - which he always supported - and against the public option - which wasn't what he campaigned for. That way the left may be disappointed - but that could happen because of his policies - but the centre wouldn't think he was yearning for a leftier option.
I don't think anything could have helped that. Obama could be Reagan-come-again and they still hate him. Their reasoning is often alien and bizarre. They are convinced that he's not an American citizen, that he won only because ACORN stole the election for him, that's he's blithering idiot who can only speak with teleprompter, that he's a front for the evil International Jew George Soros. What can you do with such people?
Speaking of Dubya:
QuoteBush: 'I wish they weren't called the Bush tax cuts'
Former President George W. Bush reflected on his presidency in a rare public appearance Tuesday, poking fun at his low approval ratings and saying he didn't miss being the leader of the free world.
"People ask, 'Do you miss the presidency?' I really don't," Bush said at an economic forum hosted by his George W. Bush Institute at the New York Historical Society. "I enjoyed it; it was an unbelievably interesting experience. It was inconvenient to have to stop at some stop signs — stop lights coming over here, but I guess I miss that."
Bush also offered some revealing comments about one of his most enduring pieces of legislation, the so-called Bush tax cuts.
Bush said that the tax cuts would have a better chance of surviving if his name hadn't been attached to them. In recent years, Democrats have resisted renewing the cuts, which they say favor the wealthy too much.
"I wish they weren't called the 'Bush tax cuts,'" he said.
Bush also seemed to suggest that, as the country climbs out of a recession, the focus on the budget deficit should take a back seat to the focus on growing the economy.
"Most of the political debate — and I guess rightly so — is about our balance sheet," Bush said. "But we believe that, in order to solve the balance sheet, first and foremost, you've got to grow the private sector. And therefore, the focus ought to be on private-sector growth."
Those comments seem to fly in the face of the new tea party-influenced Republican Party, which has been pushing the debate more towards spending cuts.
But Bush said a bigger economy would eventually eclipse the exploding national debt.
"The pie grows, the debt relative to the pie shrinks, and with fiscal discipline, you can better solve your current account deficits and your entitlements," Bush said.
The speech was notable for the light-hearted tone from the former president, who has shied from the public eye and made a point not to weigh in on President Obama's performance.
Bush repeatedly poked fun at himself, noting the caricature of his presidency as one of an unsophisticated half-wit.
Talking about a book put out by his foundation, Bush joked that people would be surprised that he is producing yet more literature — in addition to the memoir he released after his presidency.
"It's got to be a staggering thing for some of the cynics up here; I publish a book, and now the Bush Institute's publishing a book," Bush said. "They didn't think I could read, much less write a book."
The Accidental President, indeed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 05:16:40 PM
Speaking of Dubya:
(snip)
The Accidental President, indeed.
He's actually been a model ex-President; stepping forward at the right times, and stepping back at the right times.
I do think Obama has been a better president than Dubya, but I don't think he's been a great president (so far). For Democrats, Clinton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obama, and I do believe Hill would have been >>>>> Obama too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 12:51:37 PM
I think this is tough. It's easy to say they were wrong. But I think the Administration was staffed with lots of Clinton veterans and the Clintons themselves were advising. I think all of that advice would have been that the White House should let the negotiations happen in public, let Congress take the lead and 'own' healthcare reform and basically do everything to avoid what happened with Hillarycare.
Admittedly I don't think they expected another Kirstol-style 'kill the bill' strategy. But if they'd knocked heads together more then we don't know what would've happened, they may have lost Baucus or Nelson. (Edit: Or of course it could have worked and been passed quicker and communicated better. As I say I genuinely don't know which was right but I think they chose their strategy on this for good reasons.)
I don't fault Obama's negotiations with Blue Dogs over health care. He needed their votes. I do fault him for his pork-barrelesque stimulus bill and the accounting tricks he used to fund Obamacare.
Overall clearly a better president than Bush though.
I think Obama's greatest challenge has been that Republicans basically went on strike, country be damned. In our system, if you don't have 60 Senators onboard, you aren't going anywhere if the other party doesn't want you to go anywhere. Yes, technically, Obama did have the 60 votes during his first year, until Teddy croaked, but then we get into the tiresome discussion about what it really meant for "Democrats" to have 60 votes in the Senate.
Now, given that, could things have gone better with someone else in office? I'd like to think that a more politically astute president would've been able to shame the Republicans into not destroying the country to save it, but I don't think it would matter. The fundamental problem lies with the voters themselves, and a large majority of them are utterly insane, and have been utterly insane even before the black guy become the president. I don't think our country is capable of going anywhere until something snaps those insane morons out of their self-destructive mood.
Yeah, that destroying America thing really sucks, I wish they would cut it out.
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 06:12:55 PM
I think Obama's greatest challenge has been that Republicans basically went on strike, country be damned. In our system, if you don't have 60 Senators onboard, you aren't going anywhere if the other party doesn't want you to go anywhere. Yes, technically, Obama did have the 60 votes during his first year, until Teddy croaked, but then we get into the tiresome discussion about what it really meant for "Democrats" to have 60 votes in the Senate.
This. The problem wasn't named Obama, it was named the '08 election. Nearly everyone in Congress has gotten far too big for their britches, but the Republicans have been particularly egregious in behaving like the executive branch is an unpleasant nuisance to be circumvented.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 06:12:55 PM
I think Obama's greatest challenge has been that Republicans basically went on strike, country be damned. In our system, if you don't have 60 Senators onboard, you aren't going anywhere if the other party doesn't want you to go anywhere. Yes, technically, Obama did have the 60 votes during his first year, until Teddy croaked, but then we get into the tiresome discussion about what it really meant for "Democrats" to have 60 votes in the Senate.
This. The problem wasn't named Obama, it was named the '08 election. Nearly everyone in Congress has gotten far too big for their britches, but the Republicans have been particularly egregious in behaving like the executive branch is an unpleasant nuisance to be circumvented.
Lefty tears are tasty.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
Lefty tears are tasty.
Less tears than exasperated sighs because enough of this bullshit could lead to Hungary being taken more seriously than us.
Righties that should probably have failed basic civics classes in college deserve a swift kick in the nuts for making the rest of us look as retarded and petty as them.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 06:12:55 PM
I think Obama's greatest challenge has been that Republicans basically went on strike, country be damned. In our system, if you don't have 60 Senators onboard, you aren't going anywhere if the other party doesn't want you to go anywhere. Yes, technically, Obama did have the 60 votes during his first year, until Teddy croaked, but then we get into the tiresome discussion about what it really meant for "Democrats" to have 60 votes in the Senate.
This. The problem wasn't named Obama, it was named the '08 election. Nearly everyone in Congress has gotten far too big for their britches, but the Republicans have been particularly egregious in behaving like the executive branch is an unpleasant nuisance to be circumvented.
Lefty tears are tasty.
You shall be thirsty this fall I fear.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 10, 2012, 06:17:18 PM
Yeah, that destroying America thing really sucks, I wish they would cut it out.
Heh. The night Obama won the election I decided to check out some more conservative forums. FreeRepublic.com etc. I remember seeing people posting how they (private citizens), should spend as little money as possible so as to tank the economy. That way in four years a good Republican could come to power again. Country First!
Speaking of lefty tears, I watched about 30 minutes of Current this morning. Talk about stupid.
Then I blocked the channel. USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
Lefty tears are tasty.
Less tears than exasperated sighs because enough of this bullshit could lead to Hungary being taken more seriously than us.
Righties that should probably have failed basic civics classes in college deserve a swift kick in the nuts for making the rest of us look as retarded and petty as them.
The problem is that you (and many Dems) spend too much time actin superior. The opposition doesn't agree with you, they must be terribly stupid people. As a general rule, human beings don't respond well to being called ignorant. You can't expect to win their hearts if you're parading around your superiority (with little evidence to back it up, imo).
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:37:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 06:22:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 06:12:55 PM
I think Obama's greatest challenge has been that Republicans basically went on strike, country be damned. In our system, if you don't have 60 Senators onboard, you aren't going anywhere if the other party doesn't want you to go anywhere. Yes, technically, Obama did have the 60 votes during his first year, until Teddy croaked, but then we get into the tiresome discussion about what it really meant for "Democrats" to have 60 votes in the Senate.
This. The problem wasn't named Obama, it was named the '08 election. Nearly everyone in Congress has gotten far too big for their britches, but the Republicans have been particularly egregious in behaving like the executive branch is an unpleasant nuisance to be circumvented.
Lefty tears are tasty.
You shall be thirsty this fall I fear.
Doubtful. Even when Dems are on top, Dem hacks QQ about Republican minority plots with the inevitable refrain (actually DGul already brought up) that they still can't do anything as Dems don't toe the party line and let the evil Repubs hijack the conversation.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
I don't think anything could have helped that. Bush could be FDR-come-again and they still hate him. Their reasoning is often alien and bizarre. They are convinced that he didn't win the election, that he won only because the SCOTUS stole it for him, that's he's blithering idiot who can't even speak with a teleprompter, that he's a front for the evil Haliburton-lead Dick Cheney. What can you do with such people?
Seems familiar... :hmm:
What "minority plots" are we talking about garbon?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:49:32 PM
What "minority plots" are we talking about garbon?
Republican minority plots? :huh:
We already had in this thread about how the Tea Party derailed everything. The Republicans didn't even have very much power but somehow because they are so dastardly, they still were able to rule the day with their minority voice. :rolleyes:
Oh I get it. I broke a rule of the left. Minority should only be used when talking about disadvantaged ones (blacks, hispanics, gays, etc). Sorry if I caused confusion.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 10, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
I don't think anything could have helped that. Bush could be FDR-come-again and they still hate him. Their reasoning is often alien and bizarre. They are convinced that he didn't win the election, that he won only because the SCOTUS stole it for him, that's he's blithering idiot who can't even speak with a teleprompter, that he's a front for the evil Haliburton-lead Dick Cheney. What can you do with such people?
Seems familiar... :hmm:
You left out "not a citizen". Also Dick Cheney actually had an office. Bush couldn't talk straight with a teleprompter. I think you need a little work on this, Sparky. Tidy it up, and try again.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
Lefty tears are tasty.
Less tears than exasperated sighs because enough of this bullshit could lead to Hungary being taken more seriously than us.
Righties that should probably have failed basic civics classes in college deserve a swift kick in the nuts for making the rest of us look as retarded and petty as them.
The problem is that you (and many Dems) spend too much time actin superior. The opposition doesn't agree with you, they must be terribly stupid people. As a general rule, human beings don't respond well to being called ignorant. You can't expect to win their hearts if you're parading around your superiority (with little evidence to back it up, imo).
Yes, that's the problem with dealing with the backlash from Dumbfuckistan: they have ears.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:52:55 PM
Oh I get it. I broke a rule of the left. Minority should only be used when talking about disadvantaged ones (blacks, hispanics, gays, etc). Sorry if I caused confusion.
I don't think you're disadvantaged, Sunshine. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:51:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:49:32 PM
What "minority plots" are we talking about garbon?
Republican minority plots? :huh:
We already had in this thread about how the Tea Party derailed everything. The Republicans didn't even have very much power but somehow because they are so dastardly, they still were able to rule the day with their minority voice. :rolleyes:
I had no idea what you were talking about. And you know damned well how effective a filibuster is. Don't pretend ignorance of how the system works.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 10, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
I don't think anything could have helped that. Bush could be FDR-come-again and they still hate him. Their reasoning is often alien and bizarre. They are convinced that he didn't win the election, that he won only because the SCOTUS stole it for him, that's he's blithering idiot who can't even speak with a teleprompter, that he's a front for the evil Haliburton-lead Dick Cheney. What can you do with such people?
Seems familiar... :hmm:
You left out "not a citizen". Also Dick Cheney actually had an office. Bush couldn't talk straight with a teleprompter. I think you need a little work on this, Sparky. Tidy it up, and try again.
:lol: About what I expected. You're so cute when you pretend that the partisans in the Bush years weren't all that bad.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:52:55 PM
Oh I get it. I broke a rule of the left. Minority should only be used when talking about disadvantaged ones (blacks, hispanics, gays, etc). Sorry if I caused confusion.
I don't think you're disadvantaged, Sunshine. :hug:
Well I still can't get the man of my choosing a green card. <_<
Quote from: Habbaku on April 10, 2012, 07:57:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 07:53:52 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 10, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 04:55:34 PM
I don't think anything could have helped that. Bush could be FDR-come-again and they still hate him. Their reasoning is often alien and bizarre. They are convinced that he didn't win the election, that he won only because the SCOTUS stole it for him, that's he's blithering idiot who can't even speak with a teleprompter, that he's a front for the evil Haliburton-lead Dick Cheney. What can you do with such people?
Seems familiar... :hmm:
You left out "not a citizen". Also Dick Cheney actually had an office. Bush couldn't talk straight with a teleprompter. I think you need a little work on this, Sparky. Tidy it up, and try again.
:lol: About what I expected. You're so cute when you pretend that the partisans in the Bush years weren't all that bad.
How exactly are you measuring partisanship here? Did a Democrat interrupt the State of the Union to call the President a liar during the Bush term? Or did Democrats stand on the Capitol steps with the GOP counterparts to state how united they were?
Whoa, I'm surprised how liberal Languish have become in the last few years.
Quote from: Siege on April 10, 2012, 08:16:20 PM
Whoa, I'm surprised how liberal Languish have become in the last few years.
It's been about the same. You just moved to the right.
Quote from: Siege on April 10, 2012, 08:16:20 PM
Whoa, I'm surprised how liberal Languish have become in the last few years.
Most of our Conservatives have built bunkers and are just waiting for the end.
Hey Siege, you hear about that Marine who got in trouble because of the statements he made about Obama on Facebook?
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 06:28:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
Lefty tears are tasty.
Less tears than exasperated sighs because enough of this bullshit could lead to Hungary being taken more seriously than us.
Righties that should probably have failed basic civics classes in college deserve a swift kick in the nuts for making the rest of us look as retarded and petty as them.
The problem is that you (and many Dems) spend too much time actin superior. The opposition doesn't agree with you, they must be terribly stupid people. As a general rule, human beings don't respond well to being called ignorant. You can't expect to win their hearts if you're parading around your superiority (with little evidence to back it up, imo).
I think you're confusing two different issues. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just trying to pinpoint the source of the governance disaster we've lived through lately. That requires honest assessment.
Do I think that both sides have crazy fringes or illogical beliefs? Sure. Do I think that both sides are equally successful at pushing their nuttiness to the mainstream, and letting it drive the political decision-making? Fuck no. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am, and in any case I see no point in pretending to be even-handed when I don't think that the blame is even-handed in the least. That would be dishonest.
That said, if I did have the unenviable task of trying to convert the ugliest of the Tea Partiers, Moral Majoritites, or whatever the fuck they'll call themselves next, of course I would sing a different tune. I would certainly patronize the people I'm trying to convert, and feign respect for beliefs I find to be beyond the acceptable sane range of honest differences of opinion. White lies in the name of politeness are a necessity when trying to influence people.
It is hardly honest though, so I don't really need to wade through the rest of your post.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:44:31 PM
It is hardly honest though, so I don't really need to wade through the rest of your post.
How is it not honest? Do you think that I secretly harbor views that blame the left for the political dysfunction, and that I'm just trolling here?
You need to be wealthier for garbon to entertain your views.
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:44:31 PM
It is hardly honest though, so I don't really need to wade through the rest of your post.
How is it not honest? Do you think that I secretly harbor views that blame the left for the political dysfunction, and that I'm just trolling here?
I've never claimed that you are intelligent. :)
Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:44:31 PM
It is hardly honest though, so I don't really need to wade through the rest of your post.
How is it not honest? Do you think that I secretly harbor views that blame the left for the political dysfunction, and that I'm just trolling here?
I've never claimed that you are intelligent. :)
Good to know. How is that factoid relevant?
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:53:59 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:44:31 PM
It is hardly honest though, so I don't really need to wade through the rest of your post.
How is it not honest? Do you think that I secretly harbor views that blame the left for the political dysfunction, and that I'm just trolling here?
I've never claimed that you are intelligent. :)
Good to know. How is that factoid relevant?
You don't have to be lying/trolling. It could very well be the case that you simply don't know better. :console:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Of course not. Social Security in the hands of Wall Street? What could possibly happen?
Mass poverty for American oldsters? Then again, a mass influx of social security funds might be the only thing that keeps casino capitalism from fully melting down for another five years.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 09:03:05 PM
You don't have to be lying/trolling. It could very well be the case that you simply don't know better. :console:
It might be. I may be ignorant, biased, or plain insane. None of those things would imply lack of honesty, though. People are honestly wrong all the time.
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Of course not. Social Security in the hands of Wall Street? What could possibly happen?
Mass poverty for American oldsters? Then again, a mass influx of social security funds might be the only thing that keeps casino capitalism from fully melting down for another five years.
I know I could get a better return than the gubmint on the money I'm currently contributing to SocSec. Just cut me loose from the system, keep what I've contributed thus far, and let me divert my SS taxes into my 401k.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:11:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Of course not. Social Security in the hands of Wall Street? What could possibly happen?
Mass poverty for American oldsters? Then again, a mass influx of social security funds might be the only thing that keeps casino capitalism from fully melting down for another five years.
I know I could get a better return than the gubmint on the money I'm currently contributing to SocSec. Just cut me loose from the system, keep what I've contributed thus far, and let me divert my SS taxes into my 401k.
Yeah, and if I could be cut loose from car insurance system, and keep my premium, I would get a better return as well 95%+ of the time.
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 08:19:42 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 10, 2012, 08:16:20 PM
Whoa, I'm surprised how liberal Languish have become in the last few years.
It's been about the same. You just moved to the right.
There are fewer international lefties about harping on how reactionary the forum is.
Quote from: DGuller on April 10, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 09:03:05 PM
You don't have to be lying/trolling. It could very well be the case that you simply don't know better. :console:
It might be. I may be ignorant, biased, or plain insane. None of those things would imply lack of honesty, though. People are honestly wrong all the time.
Alright you caught me. I don't think you are being straight up on this one. You're making the home team sound a lot better and much less blameless.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:43:53 PM
That's fine if he's a Congressional leader. But he's a President who already had half the country ranting about socialism because he's passed what was, 5 years ago, a plausible Republican policy.
I actually think the problem with Obama is that he talks the left but actually governs from the centre - which can end up confusing and annoying both, the left think he's spineless and the right think he's too lefty.
See, Shiv, this is where your over-educated British stoic intellect fails you. You're overshooting.
The problem half the nation has with Obama is because he's black man. Yes, it's actually that fucking simple over here.
Right, because Britain would handle a Negro prime minister so well....
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
The problem is that you (and many Dems) spend too much time actin superior. The opposition doesn't agree with you, they must be terribly stupid people. As a general rule, human beings don't respond well to being called ignorant. You can't expect to win their hearts if you're parading around your superiority (with little evidence to back it up, imo).
I would absolutely blame the opposition for setting up political blockades and refusing to even open dialogue, effectively abusing a system that was designed from the ground up to enforce cooperation. Nice strawman, though.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:42:15 PM
The problem is that you (and many Dems) spend too much time actin superior. The opposition doesn't agree with you, they must be terribly stupid people. As a general rule, human beings don't respond well to being called ignorant. You can't expect to win their hearts if you're parading around your superiority (with little evidence to back it up, imo).
I would absolutely blame the opposition for setting up political blockades and refusing to even open dialogue, effectively abusing a system that was designed from the ground up to enforce cooperation. Nice strawman, though.
Of course you would. After all they are wrong and if they don't want to accept what you want to hand them, they must be evil.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 09:26:34 PM
Of course you would. After all they are wrong and if they don't want to accept what you want to hand them, they must be evil.
The irony here is that you're completely playing into the stereotype of conservatives not knowing the meaning of the word "compromise."
This is a really stupid war of ideologies, and the primary reason why I completely refuse to identify myself as a "democrat."
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 09:11:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 10, 2012, 09:03:48 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 02:33:19 PM
Of course not. Social Security in the hands of Wall Street? What could possibly happen?
Mass poverty for American oldsters? Then again, a mass influx of social security funds might be the only thing that keeps casino capitalism from fully melting down for another five years.
I know I could get a better return than the gubmint on the money I'm currently contributing to SocSec. Just cut me loose from the system, keep what I've contributed thus far, and let me divert my SS taxes into my 401k.
I doubt it. Isn't your Soc Security returned based on how long you live? Theoretically you return is infinite. It's only cut short due to your personal failure i.e. dying.
Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2012, 09:20:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:43:53 PM
That's fine if he's a Congressional leader. But he's a President who already had half the country ranting about socialism because he's passed what was, 5 years ago, a plausible Republican policy.
I actually think the problem with Obama is that he talks the left but actually governs from the centre - which can end up confusing and annoying both, the left think he's spineless and the right think he's too lefty.
See, Shiv, this is where your over-educated British stoic intellect fails you. You're overshooting.
The problem half the nation has with Obama is because he's black man. Yes, it's actually that fucking simple over here.
Right, because Britain would handle a Negro prime minister so well....
They could probably handle a negro no problem...
... let's if they can ever elect a sunni paki. :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2012, 10:11:20 PMIt's only cut short due to your personal failure i.e. dying.
Father Divine, who was extremely successful during the Depression for giving out food and his civil rights message, preached that physical death was only the result of personal failure. (Also, pro-interracial marriage but demanded total chastity.)
There's a great abandoned hotel at Broad and Girard that used be run by the Father Divine group -- apparently, the first hotel to be racially integrated in Phila.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phillyhistory.org%2FPhotoArchive%2FMediaStream.ashx%3FSC%3D2%26amp%3BImageId%3D2446&hash=5b5e363978aa51a84158d7cd950e4b71493cb4e4)
Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2012, 09:20:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 04:49:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2012, 04:43:53 PM
That's fine if he's a Congressional leader. But he's a President who already had half the country ranting about socialism because he's passed what was, 5 years ago, a plausible Republican policy.
I actually think the problem with Obama is that he talks the left but actually governs from the centre - which can end up confusing and annoying both, the left think he's spineless and the right think he's too lefty.
See, Shiv, this is where your over-educated British stoic intellect fails you. You're overshooting.
The problem half the nation has with Obama is because he's black man. Yes, it's actually that fucking simple over here.
Right, because Britain would handle a Negro prime minister so well....
Of course they would; they have Brit accents.
Now, Welsh on the other hand...
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 09:26:34 PM
Of course you would. After all they are wrong and if they don't want to accept what you want to hand them, they must be evil.
The irony here is that you're completely playing into the stereotype of conservatives not knowing the meaning of the word "compromise."
This is a really stupid war of ideologies, and the primary reason why I completely refuse to identify myself as a "democrat."
Where is there room to compromise? You've said the Republicans are to blame. Where's the compromise between that and my assertion that both have a large share of responsibility?
Quote from: derspiess on April 10, 2012, 04:15:46 PM
Quote from: Scipio on April 10, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
In the end, we will have single payer healthcare if Obamacare is declared unconstitutional, because we know single-payer is constitutional. And if this is the best thing Barry can do, it ain't any worse than anything George did. And the things I hoped Barry would do differently than George he hasn't, so eff him with a spoon.
I think we'll eventually end up with something similar to Argentina: a "universal" government-run healthcare system that is so lousy only the poor will use it, and anyone who can afford to do so will effectively opt out by buying a private insurance plan that is mostly unregulated by the gov't.
Except that our terrible universal healthcare system will cost 4 times what every other country pays for theirs, while completely failing to provide a decent level of service.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 08:00:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 07:52:55 PM
Oh I get it. I broke a rule of the left. Minority should only be used when talking about disadvantaged ones (blacks, hispanics, gays, etc). Sorry if I caused confusion.
I don't think you're disadvantaged, Sunshine. :hug:
Well I still can't get the man of my choosing a green card. <_<
Buy American.
Quote from: garbon on April 10, 2012, 10:23:47 PM
Where is there room to compromise? You've said the Republicans are to blame. Where's the compromise between that and my assertion that both have a large share of responsibility?
It's at "both are to blame, but Republicans moreso".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 11:58:47 PM
It's at "both are to blame, but Republicans moreso".
Meh. They just got to it first. A lot of political stunts are only considered "off the table" until somebody grows a pair and shows they're possible. The republican agenda doesn't seem to be that popular, but now that the democrats have seen the tactic's efficacy, I fully expect them to pull the same stonewalling tactics if and when they find themselves in the same position that the republicans are currently in.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 10, 2012, 10:18:55 PM
Of course they would; they have Brit accents.
Now, Welsh on the other hand...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fe8%2FDavid_Lloyd_George.jpg%2F460px-David_Lloyd_George.jpg&hash=6b6650fc7d8229a98999d38e53d958fd90e6c539)
Yes? What about us?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 10, 2012, 06:07:52 PMI do fault him for his pork-barrelesque stimulus bill and the accounting tricks he used to fund Obamacare.
I don't know about either. Do you have any sources?
QuoteThe problem is that you (and many Dems) spend too much time actin superior. The opposition doesn't agree with you, they must be terribly stupid people. As a general rule, human beings don't respond well to being called ignorant. You can't expect to win their hearts if you're parading around your superiority (with little evidence to back it up, imo).
Exactly. I remember during healthcare the Republicans campaigning strongly against it. The Democrats were talking among themselves like New Deal technocrats deciding which system would be best to impose on the country. It was ridiculous - they looked arrogant, elitist and disconnected. All this time I didn't see anyone campaigning for healthcare reform (as they had during the election) explaining and arguing why it's a good thing. No wonder they lost, they deserved to.
QuoteExcept that our terrible universal healthcare system will cost 4 times what every other country pays for theirs, while completely failing to provide a decent level of service.
Your government healthcare - so Medicare, Medicaid and the VA - already costs more, as a percentage of GDP than the NHS or many other Euro systems.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2012, 03:54:53 AM
I don't know about either. Do you have any sources?
You know I don't do sources.
Half the revenue for Obamacare was raised by an increase in the Medicare tax. That's real money. The other half was raised by a promise to keep the Medicare reimbursement rate down. That's fake money.
A big chunk of stimulus money was given to the the states to finance state employee salaries. Who do state employees vote for?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 10, 2012, 09:22:06 PM
I would absolutely blame the opposition for setting up political blockades and refusing to even open dialogue, effectively abusing a system that was designed from the ground up to enforce cooperation. Nice strawman, though.
That's a little harsh. Democrats weren't
that bad during the Iraq war.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2012, 07:00:19 AM
Democrats weren't that bad during the Iraq war.
And when someone did deign speak up, it got successfully circled back to Vietnam.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 11, 2012, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 11:58:47 PM
It's at "both are to blame, but Republicans moreso".
Meh. They just got to it first. A lot of political stunts are only considered "off the table" until somebody grows a pair and shows they're possible. The republican agenda doesn't seem to be that popular, but now that the democrats have seen the tactic's efficacy, I fully expect them to pull the same stonewalling tactics if and when they find themselves in the same position that the republicans are currently in.
They'd be stupid not to, it's like refusing to use nuclear weapons when one side starts dropping them.
But that's the whole fucking reason why such stunts should be off the table in the first place. After the first adopter gets his one-time advantage, both sides employ them, and in the end wind up in the same position relative to each other. The whole country, on the other hand, is worse off due to the greater area of the earth being scorched.
Who's to blame for the resulting nuclear war? You can be lazy and blame both sides for being bad, which seems to be a prerequisite for being considered a serious political thinker these days. But that's dumb. The side that gets the blame for the nuclear war is the side that first starts dropping nuclear weapons on the other side. When the other side returns the favor, they aren't being just as bad, them returning the favor is merely one more consequence of the first side's original action to start dropping the nuclear bombs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2012, 06:57:11 AM
You know I don't do sources.
Half the revenue for Obamacare was raised by an increase in the Medicare tax. That's real money. The other half was raised by a promise to keep the Medicare reimbursement rate down. That's fake money.
It's difficult to talk then because I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the cuts to Medicare?
QuoteA big chunk of stimulus money was given to the the states to finance state employee salaries. Who do state employees vote for?
Seriously? I thought pork barrel meant things like the bridge to nowhere.
The biggest decrease in employment in the US has been public sector employees especially at a local level. It's been a drag on recovery so far - local government had to make cuts almost as soon as the recession hit. Financing state employees helps mitigate the effects of that. I always thought that the funding for unemployment and states should have been separate from the stimulus but this is good policy that should have continued.
QuoteThat's a little harsh. Democrats weren't that bad during the Iraq war.
What do you mean by bad, what's your timeframe ('during the war' is very wide) and who do you mean by Democrats?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2012, 07:18:39 AM
It's difficult to talk then because I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the cuts to Medicare?
You can't cut Medicare because there's no Medicare budget. Medicare reimbursement rates are what doctors get paid to perform a given procedure on a Medicare patient.
QuoteSeriously? I thought pork barrel meant things like the bridge to nowhere.
Pork barrel means federal funds used to pay for local needs that help someone get reelected.
QuoteThe biggest decrease in employment in the US has been public sector employees especially at a local level. It's been a drag on recovery so far - local government had to make cuts almost as soon as the recession hit. Financing state employees helps mitigate the effects of that. I always thought that the funding for unemployment and states should have been separate from the stimulus but this is good policy that should have continued.
I've never seen anything that said the public sector lost more jobs than the construction industry or the financial sector. What has been true is that during the recovery while the private sector has added jobs the public sector has continued to shed them.
QuoteWhat do you mean by bad, what's your timeframe ('during the war' is very wide) and who do you mean by Democrats?
I'm thinking in particular of the several efforts by Senate Democrats (including Barry O.) to tie continuing appropriations for the war to a withdrawal schedule prior to the Surge.
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 07:14:31 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on April 11, 2012, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2012, 11:58:47 PM
It's at "both are to blame, but Republicans moreso".
Meh. They just got to it first. A lot of political stunts are only considered "off the table" until somebody grows a pair and shows they're possible. The republican agenda doesn't seem to be that popular, but now that the democrats have seen the tactic's efficacy, I fully expect them to pull the same stonewalling tactics if and when they find themselves in the same position that the republicans are currently in.
They'd be stupid not to, it's like refusing to use nuclear weapons when one side starts dropping them. But that's the whole fucking reason why such stunts should be off the table in the first place. After the first adopter gets his one-time advantage, both sides employ them, and in the end wind up in the same position relative to each other. The whole country, on the other hand, is worse off due to the greater area of the earth being scorched.
Who's to blame for the resulting nuclear war? You can be lazy and blame both sides for being bad, which seems to be a per-requisite for being considered a serious political thinker these days. But that's dumb. The side that gets the blame for the nuclear war is the side that first stops dropping nuclear weapons on the other side. When the other side returns the favor, they aren't being just as bad, them returning the favor is merely one more consequence of the first side's original action to start dropping the nuclear bombs.
We don't need more Matti analogies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2012, 07:31:34 AMYou can't cut Medicare because there's no Medicare budget. Medicare reimbursement rates are what doctors get paid to perform a given procedure on a Medicare patient.
Okay they've been attacked by most Republicans as Medicare cuts. What's your problem with it, how is it not real money?
QuotePork barrel means federal funds used to pay for local needs that help someone get reelected.
That's absurdly broad you could include literally any Federal spending spent at a local level in that. Citizens Against Government Waste give the following characteristics of pork barrel:
Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
Not specifically authorized;
Not competitively awarded;
Not requested by the President;
Greatly exceeds the President's budget request or the previous year's funding;
Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
Serves only a local or special interest.
I'd say your stimulus 'pork barrel' fails on 1, 2, 3 (it went to all states), 4, 6 and 7.
QuoteI've never seen anything that said the public sector lost more jobs than the construction industry or the financial sector. What has been true is that during the recovery while the private sector has added jobs the public sector has continued to shed them.
They've lost more than the financial sector, nowhere near as much as construction you're right. But I meant during the recovery sorry. Support for local government allowed them to postpone job cuts for a short while - it should have been more and longer until the recovery was a bit steadier (like now), instead of 2010 when the largest cuts were made. That combined with Europe and the rest was a drag on the American recovery.
QuoteI'm thinking in particular of the several efforts by Senate Democrats (including Barry O.) to tie continuing appropriations for the war to a withdrawal schedule prior to the Surge.
Again have you any details? The search I did in google found a bill without a withdrawal timetable (much to liberal Democrats annoyance) that passed in 2007 (just before the surge) with an 80-14 vote - though Obama and Clinton were among the 14.
Edit: Also I don't remember any of those bills passing, so I don't see how they're an example of 'setting up political blockades and refusing to even open dialogue, effectively abusing a system that was designed from the ground up to enforce cooperation' given that Republicans won - despite not having a majority in either chamber.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 07:31:36 AM
We don't need more Matti analogies.
You're getting really tiresome.
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 07:31:36 AM
We don't need more Matti analogies.
You're getting really tiresome.
You're the one that brought in an analogy of a nuclear bomb. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2012, 06:57:11 AM
A big chunk of stimulus money was given to the the states to finance state employee salaries. Who do state employees vote for?
Depends on the state. In Missouri, Republicans. Many are unaware that they are paid by tax dollars. Many were shocked when I pointed this out.
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 08:46:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 07:31:36 AM
We don't need more Matti analogies.
You're getting really tiresome.
You're the one that brought in an analogy of a nuclear bomb. :mellow:
Yes, to make a point about collateral damage and zero-sum nature of political wars.
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 10:12:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 08:46:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 07:31:36 AM
We don't need more Matti analogies.
You're getting really tiresome.
You're the one that brought in an analogy of a nuclear bomb. :mellow:
Yes, to make a point about collateral damage and zero-sum nature of political wars.
You know, I think Marty has poisoned the analogy well at Languish.
I think your analogy was very well made myself.
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2012, 10:14:06 AM
You know, I think Marty has poisoned the analogy well at Languish.
No, it was Siegy.
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 10:12:47 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 08:46:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 11, 2012, 08:13:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 11, 2012, 07:31:36 AM
We don't need more Matti analogies.
You're getting really tiresome.
You're the one that brought in an analogy of a nuclear bomb. :mellow:
Yes, to make a point about collateral damage and zero-sum nature of political wars.
I don't think anything that has occurred to date is similar to that (as far as nuclear war) that such an appeal is illuminating.