Turn on thread page Beta

Operation "Blessing" : PeeWeeDan prays hard to Obama watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    I like BUSH! And George W. is okay too.

    :yep: Good one, no?
    No not really, you could just mean Bush the first :P
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by CrazyPyramid)
    Oh come on, even by Republican standards Bush was awful. Having said that Obama is looking desperate at the moment. If the Democrats aren't careful they are going to get massacred in the mid terms and the world will have to put up with another 12 years of hardcore Republicanism.

    Was he awful?


    You can say it all you want but until you substantiate it it means absolutely nothing.

    And democrats will get massacred....*points to approval ratings and their historical correlations to mid terms*.



    You think you could have done a better job? You think Al "I Invented the internet" Gore was better? Or John "Didn't-draft-dodge-my-cousin-is-sharon-stone-i-have-three-purple-hearts" Kerry?
    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    Was he awful?


    You can say it all you want but until you substantiate it it means absolutely nothing.

    And democrats will get massacred....*points to approval ratings and their historical correlations to mid terms*.



    You think you could have done a better job? You think Al "I Invented the internet" Gore was better? Or John "Didn't-draft-dodge-my-cousin-is-sharon-stone-i-have-three-purple-hearts" Kerry?
    :rolleyes:
    I dare say Al Gore or Kerry would have done a better job. I don't particularly like Gore but still.

    A few things wrong with Bush then: Guantanamo Bay and condoning the use of torture, the misguided invasion of Afghanistan and the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, wiretapping, the regressive taxing policies he had, his terrible environmental record.

    America was fairly well liked as a nation until he got into power. After that, their popularity plummeted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    Good for you and your doubting. His troop increases speak otherwise.
    But surely he can still begin to pull out in 2011? One doesn't nescessarily end the other, even if he wanted to reach a compromise by making both decisions at the same time.

    (Original post by HDS)
    You know nothing about approval ratings do you? In short: He won't get **** all on healthcare if he wants any hope of having any form of control at all in the future.

    It's usually a state responsibility, not a national one, look @ california.:rolleyes:
    Erm, I think I know a little. I'm guessing it's something to do with the approx. 47% rating then was pretty much fixed when 2010 began?

    (Original post by HDS)
    Lol. Yes. There are. Nobody cares though.

    And yes their system is the best and the only one that could work in America.

    America =/= Britain. You can't implement the same things worldwide.:rolleyes:

    And btw - it's not "in the short term". Those taxes are going to be life-long...why in the hell would they want to increase them?

    Sorry mate, not everyone wants socialism.

    I would prefer a private system because i don't want to spend my money for the health of others.
    See, this is what I don't get. Free healthcare = no-brainer from my point of view, even if taxes are going to be increased. Perhaps non-Americans can't really understand the American psyche, even if they'll probably save money in the long run.

    (Original post by HDS)
    Yes.

    Obama is not like every other politician. He needn't follow party doctrine or listen to his advisors and aides. He is in this for the people and because he cares. Hope. Change. :rolleyes:
    I think a lot of people genuinely believe this. Perhaps I'm being blatantly biased and naive, but I think he does care and change is really something that he wants. Would he really generate all that support and then squander it?

    (Original post by HDS)
    Also, you've failed to show me any substantial change he has made. You cited the stimulus bill which you claim led to a $25 increase in some jobs. Lol....$25.....
    I didn't fail, I just chose not to. Considering community workers said that straight after the SB had been implemented they were getting increases, I think that shows it's done something.

    (And for the reference of evidence, just check out the 'Obama and Me' documentary that was on yesterday or so. It's on there.)


    (Original post by HDS)
    2) You conveniently forget he failed to freeze & cap the salaries of bailed out companies (i.e. GVT majority owner) CEOs as he promised.:rolleyes:
    In fairness, this is perhaps where we agree.


    (Original post by HDS)
    Wake up and smell real life politics mate, I don't know if you've ever worked with a party, been on a campaign team or ran for anything yourself but I assure you, it's not a one man thing like everyone is making it out to be for obama, in fact, when you run for anything you don't even get near most of the decisions.
    And, no, I haven't... but I'd like to. Though British politics is so incredibly bland that any hope reform to the US version would be welcome.

    And I can understand that, but his ideas are his ideas. If he wants them, he'll probably push for 'em.


    (Original post by HDS)
    also. Bush was a good president. Everyone *****es about him but the reality is that nobody could do any better in the situation in which he was in, and don't forget, he didn't act alone he had the congress and senate (of which obama was a part of).
    And I just don't agree with this.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by CrazyPyramid)
    I dare say Al Gore or Kerry would have done a better job. I don't particularly like Gore but still.

    A few things wrong with Bush then: Guantanamo Bay and condoning the use of torture,
    Fair nuff.

    the misguided invasion of Afghanistan
    According to whom?

    Also - Familliarize yourself with the principles and workings of NATO.
    and the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq,
    Which he did alone of course. No Cheney, no other bits of government, just him himself.
    wiretapping,
    The patriot act? Passed 357:66 in house and 98:1 in senate? That wiretapping?:rolleyes:
    the regressive taxing policies he had,
    Matter of opinion. I liked them.
    his terrible environmental record.
    Clinton was MUUUUUUUUUCH better
    America was fairly well liked as a nation until he got into power. After that, their popularity plummeted.
    That's true. I'll give you that but you are ill informed about the rest. It wasn't all bush as the majority of students would have you believe.
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by JonCha)
    But surely he can still begin to pull out in 2011? One doesn't nescessarily end the other, even if he wanted to reach a compromise by making both decisions at the same time.


    He won't. He didn't cap bailed CEO salaries, why would he do that?

    See, this is what I don't get. Free healthcare = no-brainer from my point of view, even if taxes are going to be increased. Perhaps non-Americans can't really understand the American psyche, even if they'll probably save money in the long run.
    I'm against national healthcare. And I'm non-american. I'm concerned with my own life and well being.


    I think a lot of people genuinely believe this. Perhaps I'm being blatantly biased and naive, but I think he does care and change is really something that he wants. Would he really generate all that support and then squander it?
    Yes. He would.

    See: Kennedy.

    Bay of Pigs, Missile crisis.

    He was about hope & change too.

    He wouldn't be the first or the last to squander it.


    People do believe it, you're right, but there is nothing to back it up except empty rhetoric.


    I didn't fail, I just chose not to. Considering community workers said that straight after the SB had been implemented they were getting increases, I think that shows it's done something.

    Sorry, $25 isn't even worth talking about.

    (What documentary? I'm not currently in the UK. Also, docu =/= evidence always, michael moore has prooved this)




    In fairness, this is perhaps where we agree.
    :yep:


    And, no, I haven't... but I'd like to. Though British politics is so incredibly bland that any hope reform to the US version would be welcome.



    And I can understand that, but his ideas are his ideas. If he wants them, he'll probably push for 'em.
    trust me, you don't want US politics, I've seen too much of those, I far preffer british politics. At least there are more monkeys to choose between.


    WRT 'his' ideas.....don't be so sure about that. Like I said, i reccomend you run for a political position sometime, youll see wht i mean


    And I just don't agree with this.
    To each their own.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakujo)
    Alright so basically charity?
    Basically. It was 100% private, no government involvement. My only point was this whole "you get a bill you can't afford and then you lose your house and die on the streets" argument is usually total nonsense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HDS)
    You mean the one which is still open?:rolleyes:

    Sorry, did I pretend it was now closed? The place is a legal minefield now and Obama wants to close it, but is struggling to. If it was never opened, then Obama wouldn't have the problem. The place is completely inhumane.



    According to whom?

    Also - Familliarize yourself with the principles and workings of NATO.

    When I say misguided, I don't necessarily mean the invasion as an idea was bad. Just the execution of it. We're still there...


    Which he did alone of course. No Cheney, no other bits of government, just him himself.

    =|=|=|=| I believe you are being facetious with this point. Of course he didn't do it by himself, but I think it's fair to say as THE PRESIDENT he was mainly responsible for the country going to war. Although didn't Cheney come out and say Bush went soft in the second term? Not enough torture, not enough commitment to Iraq? He's even crazier.


    The patriot act? Passed 357:66 in house and 98:1 in senate? That wiretapping?:rolleyes:

    Yes, the patriot act.
    lol patriot act

    Matter of opinion. I liked them.

    Yeah well most people think it's better to give tax breaks to the working or middle class and not the wealthiest people in the world.


    Clinton was MUUUUUUUUUCH better

    Clinton might well have been bad, I haven't read his record. Doesn't make Bush any better.
    lol environment

    That's true. I'll give you that but you are ill informed about the rest. It wasn't all bush as the majority of students would have you believe.
    Not saying it was all Bush, but he must remain the main perpetrator of such policies. One thing I will give him: for better or for worse, he knew how to get his policies through. Passed a lot of legislation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazyPyramid)
    I dare say Al Gore or Kerry would have done a better job. I don't particularly like Gore but still.

    A few things wrong with Bush then: Guantanamo Bay and condoning the use of torture, the misguided invasion of Afghanistan and the completely ridiculous invasion of Iraq, wiretapping, the regressive taxing policies he had, his terrible environmental record.

    America was fairly well liked as a nation until he got into power. After that, their popularity plummeted.
    I'm not sure it's possible for a president to be well liked in the international community and be well liked at home. Unfortunately for europe, being well liked at home is more important for a US president because we are the ones who elect our leaders, not you. Obama has been going abroad and telling foreign audiences that we torture people, that we lost sight of our ideals, that our foreign policy is misguided, his predecessors were wrong, etc. in his non-stop apology tour. This might make Europe smile and nod and get all excited over his humility, but that kind of behavior makes our blood boil back at home and I just become more and more motivated to destroy Obama's political career and send him back to community organizing in chicago.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I'm not sure it's possible for a president to be well liked in the international community and be well liked at home. Unfortunately for europe, being well liked at home is more important for a US president because we are the ones who elect our leaders, not you. Obama has been going abroad and telling foreign audiences that we torture people, that we lost sight of our ideals, that our foreign policy is misguided, his predecessors were wrong, etc. in his non-stop apology tour. This might make Europe smile and nod and get all excited over his humility, but that kind of behavior makes our blood boil back at home and I just become more and more motivated to destroy Obama's political career and send him back to community organizing in chicago.
    You have a point to an extent but Clinton managed to keep some balance. Bush alienated absolutely everyone except the most partisan Republicans.

    It's a tricky balancing act and no one has proven that better than George W Bush. Obama is managing a little better with it at the moment. But I know his ratings domestically speaking, are falling awfully quickly. Worst ratings since Eisenhower at this point I believe.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blinkbelle)
    The collapse of the global economy had absolutely nothing to do with Obama and tbh he dealt with it pretty well. Its irrelevant to any discussion of his success imo.
    Maybe not Obama in particular, but his party is responsible and he will go down with his party. Chris Dodd, Chair of the Banking committee and Barney Frank, Chair of the Finance Committee (both democrats) sat on their asses as the country's financial system went down the drain.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazyPyramid)
    You have a point to an extent but Clinton managed to keep some balance. Bush alienated absolutely everyone except the most partisan Republicans.

    It's a tricky balancing act and no one has proven that better than George W Bush. Obama is managing a little better with it at the moment. But I know his ratings domestically speaking, are falling awfully quickly. Worst ratings since Eisenhower at this point I believe.
    Why bother making Europe happy though? Who cares if we are liked by these socialist morons? Britain is important because they are our number one ally, but continental europe is a waste of our time. Making France and Germany happy has just alienated Obama at home. Americans want to hear about "american exceptionalism." We don't want to hear our president in front of french and german audiences telling them we have misguided foreign policy, we lost sight of our ideals, we torture people, our previous presidents were all idiots. I've see Obama pander on three separate continents and it's very frustrating.

    I don't want balance. We are a proud people and an American president shouldn't be bowing or apologizing to anyone about anything. This is embarrassing! I can't wait to throw this groveling wimp out of office in 2012.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Why bother making Europe happy though? Who cares if we are liked by these socialist morons? Britain is important because they are our number one ally, but continental europe is a waste of our time. Making France and Germany happy has just alienated Obama at home. Americans want to hear about "american exceptionalism." We don't want to hear our president in front of french and german audiences telling them we have misguided foreign policy, we lost sight of our ideals, we torture people, our previous presidents were all idiots. I've see Obama pander on three separate continents and it's very frustrating.

    I don't want balance. We are a proud people and an American president shouldn't be bowing or apologizing to anyone about anything. This is embarrassing! I can't wait to throw this groveling wimp out of office in 2012.

    Oh dear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prussianking666)
    Yeah he always did, pitty the senate is full of idiots like Bachman, who believe everything that Limbaugh says.

    The GOP are full of incompetent morons. (the democrats have Harry reid so not much better)
    It's not so much their morons it's more a question of they'll do anything for power, even if it means risking any moral integrity they had left, those who should be most ashamed are the moderates who could have voted for the bill which they actually have no problem with but because they knew it would benefit the party if they didn't they chose to tow the party line. So much for independent politicians. If anything the independent politicians were on the Democrat side, those Democrats who went against the party by voting down the Bill, the Democrat party are full of free thinkers and sadly it's cost them this vital bill. It's all bad news from here on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Why bother making Europe happy though? Who cares if we are liked by these socialist morons? Britain is important because they are our number one ally, but continental europe is a waste of our time. Making France and Germany happy has just alienated Obama at home. Americans want to hear about "american exceptionalism." We don't want to hear our president in front of french and german audiences telling them we have misguided foreign policy, we lost sight of our ideals, we torture people, our previous presidents were all idiots. I've see Obama pander on three separate continents and it's very frustrating.

    I don't want balance. We are a proud people and an American president shouldn't be bowing or apologizing to anyone about anything. This is embarrassing! I can't wait to throw this groveling wimp out of office in 2012.
    Perhaps he knows something you don't, namely that the country has been living on huge deficits for a long time and it's economic influence will only diminish over time, coinciding with the rise of the BRIC countries, the EU will be a useful ally to have. Britain however will also become less powerful and will hopefully become ever more integrated into the EU.
    It's all right to have the world hate you when your the most powerful but that times coming to an end, you'll have three or four countries overtake you in the next 20 to 50 years. China will overtake you probably before then even.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    It's not so much their morons it's more a question of they'll do anything for power, even if it means risking any moral integrity they had left, those who should be most ashamed are the moderates who could have voted for the bill which they actually have no problem with but because they knew it would benefit the party if they didn't they chose to tow the party line. So much for independent politicians. If anything the independent politicians were on the Democrat side, those Democrats who went against the party by voting down the Bill, the Democrat party are full of free thinkers and sadly it's cost them this vital bill. It's all bad news from here on.
    Are you folks aware that there is a solid majority of american people against the bill?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    Perhaps he knows something you don't, namely that the country has been living on huge deficits for a long time and it's economic influence will only diminish over time, coinciding with the rise of the BRIC countries, the EU will be a useful ally to have. Britain however will also become less powerful and will hopefully become ever more integrated into the EU.
    It's all right to have the world hate you when your the most powerful but that times coming to an end, you'll have three or four countries overtake you in the next 20 to 50 years. China will overtake you probably before then even.
    If being liked by France and Germany means having our president do a non-stop apology tour, then I would rather have some dignity and be disliked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Are you folks aware that there is a solid majority of american people against the bill?
    That's only because there's no public option. This was Obama's big mistake, he should have gone partisan, there was overwhelming support for a bill with a public-option.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Democracy!
    Yay! Thousands more needlessly die!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    Are you folks aware that there is a solid majority of american people against the bill?
    Yes because there is no public option not because of some ******** small-town-american conservatism.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 23, 2010
The home of Results and Clearing

1,337

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.