WorldTraveller
-
Posts
1,037 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by WorldTraveller
-
-
-
We don't have a budget. We have spending. And I maintain that our ability to borrow cheaply in the future is healthy for our spending policy over the long term.
He doesn't know any better. He's a defender of the status quo, and the status quo assures us of a debt crisis. It will take bold leadership to address our looming fiscal nightmare, and the president doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.
-
Why don't you send that to your guys...or does it work one way? It's well documented the GOP's stance on how to recover from the shellacking of 2008...sit on the sidelines and B word betting the economy to crash and keeping their finger prints off it (aka doing nothing in a time of crisis) so when it was time for the next election they could point a finger and also state exactly what you are doing now: "Obama is not bipartisan." You see..when cooperation is a campaign theme the other party can single handedly break it. All that is need to examine is what is known ("known" as in fact) about the strategy meeting in late December/Early January before Obama was sworn in...all that is necessary to show it was working in action is the events leading the recovery act. Buy your parties own trash, go right ahead. You are literally the product of a political strategy.
If I was you, I would be upset as well. I know that supporting a person who has failed is not an easy thing to do, specially having to try to defend his failed record and leadership.
I supported bush until he signed Medicare D, and amongst the people I talked politics too, specially the conservatives, they hated hearing my constant bashing of bush for being a fiscal fraud. Maybe you will someday value results over the indivdual you support. I find that to be much more admirable.
There is no getting around this, Obama is the president, and we should all expect results, not excuses.
That's all there is read. It's not a "golden opportunity" ... we have to pay our bills. It's that simple. There are no golden opportunities with that. It's crazy and it doesn't matter who does it, who did it, when how or why...it's just crazy. It's unconstitutional quite frankly.
It was a golden opportunity, and he blew it
-
A golden opportunity was brought to us because of the tea party. They were elected on a mandate, a mandate to change the status quo, a mandate to try to rein in the deficit. They leveraged their mandate to where the leader of the house and Obama could have a golden opportunity to have a real substantive debt reduction. As they were hammering out the deal, boehner took hard hits from the tea party by producing 400 billion in revenues, the tea party was livid, but boehner delivered. But when Obama saw that the gang of six had been talking about possibly even more revenues, at least in their discussions, and Obama was hearing that he could be receiving lash back from his leftist extremist wing, he backed out of the deal and moved the goal posts.
Effectively killing the deal.
And as a result, we lost our AAA rating.
That's not a vapid taking point, or my translation of what happened, but of what the detailed WAPO piece and Woodward excerpts said.
-
As I tried explaining to our friend from PA. Great leaders forge relationships with their political adversaries, they constantly work to cultivate those relationships, when those relationships become workable, things get done. By all accounts, Obama has failed miserably in this area, and according to many people, he simply doesn't have the desire to do what it takes to reach out a Ross the aisle.
These aren't my words, these are the words of these reporters who had access to the WH to write these books and articles.
Reagan and Clinton would of never of let our country lose our AAA rating.
Obama failed
-
"Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Barry said it himself. He's a failure as a leader. The Repubs were trying to reign-in his out-of-control spending, he didn't like it, and took his ball and went home. As a result, the US's credit rating took a hit. There is nothing more to say here.
Obama is not a leader
-
Nope, Obama backed out of the deal, according to WAPO and Woodward. I know it kills you that the spin Meisters from the democratic party fed you a different narrative that was more convenient for you, and that it made you feel a little better inside being able to parrot false talking points, but that simply wasn't the case.
In any case, Obama blew it and we lost our AAA rating
-
Save your vapid talking points for your own ilk. That **** doesn't work with me.
It's not accurate, it's a talking point meant to fool the sheeple, in this case you.
-
Also, this "hostage" talk that you keep bringing up, is talking points that were provided by democratic lawmakers so that leftist sheeple could parrot it to anyone who would listen. I'm surprised that you were so easily fooled, I thought you were a little brighter than that.
Read up on the story, then get back to me
-
I understand that you don't want to accept what truly happened, that's what happens to naive people such as yourself, I suggest you read the WAPO story that was posted on the debt debacle or for that matter the released excerpts for the Woodward book. Boehner brought him the deal, and Obama at the last minute changed the parameters, thus leading to the failure of the debt deal.
If Clinton or Reagan were president, a deal would have been made, fact is Obama failed, and as a result we lost our AAA credit rating.
Obama doesn't deserve re election.
-
Nope, I will continue to point out that the debt debacle, which led to the downgrade of our AAA rating, for the first time in US history falls mainly on president obamas heels. He's the president, the leader and he blew it.
Obama isn't fit to lead
-
It's like classic republican trickle down economics cut the taxes on the rich to below that of the rest of the country and bang the rest of us get richer! If you will buy that line of reasoning I am not sure how you can balk at putting money into the middle class can't accomplish the same thing
That made no sense
-
Obama politicized the issue in 2006 as a senator and as president, he backed out of the deal simply because he was afraidd of his extremist leftist base.
He's not fit to lead.
-
The headlines just about everywhere I'm reading, which is NY Times, WAPO, Politico, Weeklystandard, Drudge (Plastered everywhere
), National Review, National Journal so on and so on is not about Obama's convention, but the piss poor jobs report.Not the way he would of liked for it to be
-
Such disparity.... gallup gives him + 9 Rasmussen gives him - 8
-
You know when Andrea Mitchell begins to worry, there is cause for concern.
-
Huh? Mark Sanchez's unemployed girlfriend gave a speech at the DNC? What did she talk about, how being a spoiled girl who !@#$s millionaire athletes allows her to relate to the middle class?
-
I think Juror just popped a blood vessel
You know what, language was a bit harsh.
Edited.
Happy Friday.
It's all good.....
-
No. So you just wasted my time with your filthy, grubby post. You fu(king fu(((kup.
Right now you sound like a B word on your period. Stop crying to me and go buy some feminine products.
Such vitriol
relax lil buddy, no need to get in a hissy fit
-
No. The extreme belief is that all it takes is hard work. Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough.
Hold on a second, that's not what was said.
Chef said:
What's wrong with supporting an incentive? I don't begrudge their wealth my desire us to joint their ranks as should yours.You actually think these are real??
Then Koolaid said:
This.I'm not rich or wealthy yet just middle class Someday I want to be very well off and I'm trying to WORK my way there. I'm not jealous of others success but rather want to join them. That is what makes America.
You should not be penalized and discouraged from hardwork and success.
Then you said:
There it isChef and Kool Aid pointed out the fundamental difference between both extremes on the right and left: "I'm not rich yet but one day I will be."The extreme right believes everyone gets what they deserve -- so if you work hard enough you'll eventually join the "rich" club.
The extreme left believes that notion is a mirage and that the system is rigged to prevent equal opportunity for success.
Then When I asked you why you considered it to be "extreme"
you responded with:
No. The extreme belief is that all it takes is hard work. Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough.Where did they say or imply "That ALL it takes is hard work"?
or "Work hard and no matter what soon enough you'll be rich -- and if you don't get rich it's because you didn't work hard enough."
I'll tell you where, no where.
You see, you just added that in there, it wasn't stated or even implied. It was mentioned as a component of what it takes to try to get there.
All Kool aid said was "Im trying to work my way there"
You're wrong on this one, and I'll argue that what was "extreme" was your perception of his statement.
On a sidenote, I love deconstructing arguments like this
-
Just don't go all Big Cat "I disagree because it's politics, even though I agree because it's a good idea" on us.
That's a low blow
-
Generally, it's probably safe to assume they're being obstructionist if they filibuster everything.
It's even reasonable to say they're being obstructionist if they filibuster anything...on the basis that, yes, they are obstructing something. Doesn't mean it's wrong...but again, given the hyper-partisan atmosphere of the past ten or so years, it's not unreasonable to assume it's strictly political.
Doesn't make it a fact, makes it an opinion. I'm a staunch fiscal conservative, When Bush signed the Medicare Part D, I sat out the elections.
So if you want to assume that it's political, then thats your opinion. I happen to agree with the decisions of opposing most of Obama's agenda.
-
Anyway, the president was filibustered...a lot. It was obstructionist by the republicans to do that. It was politically smart, but it was obstructionist. That way nothing gets done and they can blame it on the president. If the Ds had done it, it would have been obstructionist by them too. They did it to Bush's judicial appointments in early 04. Guess what, it was obstructionist.
Why is that so hard for folks here to admit? Does a "fact" become an "excuse" if you don't like the person?
It's just a fact. It's not a partisan fact. It's just a fact. The Republicans doubled the record for filibusters by a single Congress. The Dems had the record in 1999-2000 with like 55 filibusters. The republicans filibustered like 120 times in 09-10.
Obviously you don't know what a "fact" is.
So allow me to educate you:
Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.
What you stated, was your opinion.
Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
You believe they were obstructionist for purely political reasons and discount their motives.
I for one am glad that they in your words "obstructed" Obama's agenda of higher spending, with the intentions of temporarily stimulating the economy.
Fiscal conservatives vehemently disagree with the presidents policies because we believe that they don't solve the countries problems. Bush was a big spender, and as a result fiscal conservative minded voters didn't turn out for the 2006 mid term and 2008 presidential elections.
That is what we call "message received".
So you can pretend to know what you are talking about, which you don't, and spout your own OPINIONS and try to cast them off as facts, but we know better.
So please, spare us your bull ****
-
Some of the Reviews:
“Let’s be blunt. Barack Obama gave a dull and pedestrian speech tonight, with nary an interesting thematic device, policy detail, or even one turn of phrase,” wrote Michael Tomasky, the editor of the progressive journal Democracy, at The Daily Beast.
“This was the rhetorical equivalent, forgive the football metaphor, of running out the clock: Obama clearly thinks he’s ahead and just doesn’t need to make mistakes. But when football teams do that, it often turns out to be the biggest mistake of all, and they lose,” concluded Tomasky.
“t got the job done. But I didn’t feel any real passion in the delivery. It felt more like an actor soldiering through his lines,” wrote Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. “There was nothing memorable, nothing forward looking, and nothing that drew a contrast with Romney in sharp, gut-level strokes. Obama was, to be charitable, no more than the third best of the Democratic convention’s prime time speakers in 2012.”“In the shadow of Clinton’s performance, the president often felt flat, rote, and unconvincing — almost as though he wasn’t quite convinced by his own arguments and promises, and felt a little awkward selling them to us,” wrote the New York Times’ Ross Douthat.
“I’d still give Bill Clinton props for the best speech of both conventions,” agreed ThinkProgress’ Joe Romm.“His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There’s too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal,” wrote Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. “It was stale and empty. He’s out of juice.””But I thought the speech as a whole was exceptionally weak. Not a sale closer – not by a long shot,” wrote Noah Millman at The American Conservative.“[T]his was a modest speech. It was a more humble vision,” wrote Ezra Klein at The Washington Post. “And so it didn’t ask you to believe that Obama could accomplish miracles. It didn’t ask you to believe he could change Washington or stop the oceans from rising. The promises were more modest, the president explicit about how often he had been humbled, and the agenda was meant to make voters feel safer with the Democrat they know than the Republican they don’t.”“It’s a more dignified speech, but he’s scarred. He’s more mature and he’s not promising as much,” said CNN’s David Gergen on Thursday evening. “There is very little here in the way of promises about jobs in terms of where we’re going on this, how much we’re going to get the deficit down quickly. I thought he lowered the bar in terms of what he was trying to achieve.”The president should have gone after Mitt Romney for doubling down on the mess the GOP created, and the nightmare we’ve had to endure. Instead, it felt like a laundry list.
To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Peter Beinart, Daily Beast
Krauthammer: "One of the emptiest speeches I ever heard"
Dana Millbank from WAPO: Obama the Demigod comes down to earth
It was quite a comedown from that heady night in Denver four years ago when Obama accepted the nomination in front of about 80,000 at Invesco Field. The candidate, on a stage set resembling a Greek temple, spoke about remaking the nation and the world.The demigod turned out to be entirely human, and his results were disappointing.
Woodward's new book on debt deal collapse puts the onus on Obama
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by WorldTraveller
Greece is different. The grave to cradle mentality runs deep, the over promises they have made are hard to undo, and nearly politically impossible to follow through on. Not to mention that they have no sway and are at the mercy of other nations, primarily Germany, simply because they don't have control of their own destiny ie. central bank.
We need leadership, someone who will work tirelessly to forge relationships with their political adversaries, someone who will compromise, and that when all is said and done, gets results..
Unfortunately, that person doesn't live in the WH