President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RedWingFan]

I find the furious rants by Limbaugh to be the most entertaining of all the Chickenhawk Five, as Rush (in the 80's) suckled off the proverbial teat of the welfare (and free healthcare) system for six years after his unemployment ran out - as he, by his own account, mowed the occasional lawn and mostly sat on his couch, watching TV, and eating potato chips. Now THAT was proactive of him. "Don't do as I did - do as I say you should." What a riot.

Geeze 7 Wishes....how long does it take to find a source? Are you searching your vast archives or are you trying to let this flat out lie that you told fade away unnoticed? Arguing must be real easy when you make stuff up huh?

[7 Wishes]

First of all, it's common knowledge. He acknowledges it in his first book. I would have figured a dittohead troglodyte like you would have read it and masturbated to it repeatedly.

So, the fact that I don't come to the forum for 24 hours and don't respond to you "immediately" about something that is a common-knowledge fact means I'm "making stuff up"? I have not seen you respond to the six years of GOP strongarming the Democrats and ruining the economy via reconciliation and forcing the passing of legislation that was entirely debt- and defecit- financed. Pure fucking hypocrisy. I didn't figure you'd have the balls, or the intelligence, to respond to that.

[conversationpc]

First of all, it's common knowledge. He acknowledges it in his first book...

I hate Limbaugh, so I'm not about to read his book and I'm certainly not going to just accept that he's admitted it. I'll believe it when I read it from an unbiased source. Do you have a link?

[CatEyes]

should read- st john for comedic affect and tito for racist smack. the rest are master debaters .

Affect or effect?

Cat

[RedWingFan]

So, the fact that I don't come to the forum for 24 hours and don't respond to you "immediately" about something that is a common-knowledge fact means I'm "making stuff up"?

If it's common knowledge fact that Limbaugh was on welfare for 6 years, it should be easy to find the source. So do it Professor Jones.

[donnaplease]

It's certainly no secret that I'm not a BO fan. I try not to bash him for the sake of doing so though. However, after the few clips I saw of him speaking in Iowa the other day, I am utterly disgusted. He is the worst example of presidential honor I have ever witnessed. He goes to talk about the benefits of the health plan (as he sees it), and he turns it into a fucking campaign speech! They wanna do this and they wanna do that, and BRING IT ON! What a total fuckhead! He talks about bipartisanship, yet makes NO effort to respect his counterparts. He shows absolutely no respect for the office for which he holds, and I'm sick of it!

In the spirit of certain comments made around here, I hope he contracts some rare, painful, fatal disease... AND THEN HAS TO STAND IN LINE FOR TREATMENT!

Go ahead now, beat up on me. I know you want to. I don't give a fuck.

[Behshad]

It's certainly no secret that I'm not a BO fan. I try not to bash him for the sake of doing so though. However, after the few clips I saw of him speaking in Iowa the other day, I am utterly disgusted. He is the worst example of presidential honor I have ever witnessed. He goes to talk about the benefits of the health plan (as he sees it), and he turns it into a fucking campaign speech! They wanna do this and they wanna do that, and BRING IT ON! What a total fuckhead! He talks about bipartisanship, yet makes NO effort to respect his counterparts. He shows absolutely no respect for the office for which he holds, and I'm sick of it!

In the spirit of certain comments made around here, I hope he contracts some rare, painful, fatal disease... AND THEN HAS TO STAND IN LINE FOR TREATMENT!

Go ahead now, beat up on me. I know you want to. I don't give a fuck.

Guess he learned about respect from you !

[Lula]

come on ff, william la jeunesse of fox? not biased in the least

[Lula]

i have no problem with people getting rich, i'm all for it! when you have someone like donald trump (insert any millionaire who is incorporated) who shows an income of 20,000 and couldn't qualify for a car loan, something is not right. the tax laws for the upper crust have favored that group far too long. the middle class have been screwed far too long. i guess you favor bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest? i don't subscribe to the trickle down theory of reagan. ever since reagan the strategy has been to shift the politics to the corporate advantage, the supreme court has shown that, especially with the latest ruling rolling back campaign contributions. obama is in favor of building up the middle class which is a direct threat to the wealthiest echelon.

[Ehwmatt]

i have no problem with people getting rich, i'm all for it! when you have someone like donald trump (insert any millionaire who is incorporated) who shows an income of 20,000 and couldn't qualify for a car loan, something is not right. the tax laws for the upper crust have favored that group far too long. the middle class have been screwed far too long. i guess you favor bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest? i don't subscribe to the trickle down theory of reagan. ever since reagan the strategy has been to shift the politics to the corporate advantage, the supreme court has shown that, especially with the latest ruling rolling back campaign contributions. obama is in favor of building up the middle class which is a direct threat to the wealthiest echelon.

Lula, you can't manage the country from the bottom up. The country is a business just like any other. You screw the big guy, he's gonna screw a lot of people beneath him. That's all there is to it.

This might seem cold, but if you had a restaurant with one of the best chefs in town and you sit there and worry more about the guy washing your dishes than you do about your all-star chef, what kinda restaurant are you gonna have in the long run?

[Behshad]

i have no problem with people getting rich, i'm all for it! when you have someone like donald trump (insert any millionaire who is incorporated) who shows an income of 20,000 and couldn't qualify for a car loan, something is not right. the tax laws for the upper crust have favored that group far too long. the middle class have been screwed far too long. i guess you favor bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest? i don't subscribe to the trickle down theory of reagan. ever since reagan the strategy has been to shift the politics to the corporate advantage, the supreme court has shown that, especially with the latest ruling rolling back campaign contributions. obama is in favor of building up the middle class which is a direct threat to the wealthiest echelon.

Lula, you can't manage the country from the bottom up. The country is a business just like any other. You screw the big guy, he's gonna screw a lot of people beneath him. That's all there is to it.

This might seem cold, but if you had a restaurant with one of the best chefs in town and you sit there and worry more about the guy washing your dishes than you do about your all-star chef, what kinda restaurant are you gonna have in the long run?

Then STFU and give the highest guy above some credit for trying to fix the shit the previous "owner" left behind

[Lula]

Lula, you can't manage the country from the bottom up. The country is a business just like any other. You screw the big guy, he's gonna screw a lot of people beneath him. That's all there is to it.

This might seem cold, but if you had a restaurant with one of the best chefs in town and you sit there and worry more about the guy washing your dishes than you do about your all-star chef, what kinda restaurant are you gonna have in the long run?

not sure how you got this out of my comment

if you worry more about the chef and less about the dishes..... don't care how fine the food is if it's served on a plate with dried caked on food. bottom line- you have to recognize the needs beyond the upper crust. as i stated, the working class, not the poor, are in need of legislature that works in their favor. its been far too long and it's time.

[Ehwmatt]

Lula, you can't manage the country from the bottom up. The country is a business just like any other. You screw the big guy, he's gonna screw a lot of people beneath him. That's all there is to it.

This might seem cold, but if you had a restaurant with one of the best chefs in town and you sit there and worry more about the guy washing your dishes than you do about your all-star chef, what kinda restaurant are you gonna have in the long run?

not sure how you got this out of my comment

if you worry more about the chef and less about the dishes..... don't care how fine the food is if it's served on a plate with dried caked on food. bottom line- you have to recognize the needs beyond the upper crust. as i stated, the working class, not the poor, are in need of legislature that works in their favor. its been far too long and it's time.

It's simple - you're advocating a bottom-up management structure. Pretty sad that a teacher couldn't see the connection.

That was a good response to the analogy though - credit where credit's due

[Lula]

It's simple - you're advocating a bottom-up management structure. Pretty sad that a teacher couldn't see the connection.

yikes. okay young man, explain the connection, please. as a teacher i am always learning, seeking out new ideas, and never embarrassed to say "i don't get it," so please enlighten me.

[Ehwmatt]

It's simple - you're advocating a bottom-up management structure. Pretty sad that a teacher couldn't see the connection.

yikes. okay young man, explain the connection, please. as a teacher i am always learning, seeking out new ideas, and never embarrassed to say "i don't get it," so please enlighten me.

Ok:

Obama is in favor of building up the middle class which is a direct threat to the wealthiest echelon.

Translated: Obama wants to manage the country from the bottom-up (between the lines of his strategy: for political gain/mass votes).

Hence the restaurant analogy.

Look, I agree that there are a lot of people who have serious problems in this country and some of them do work. But, the problem is, we don't have the resources to redistribute income right now. We just don't. I'm all for the dish washer getting a 10-20% raise, but not at the expense of the best chef in town... it just can't work that way long-term. It can't.

We have no manufacturing jobs in this country and higher education is a joke. You don't get a return on your investment any more, in many situations. On one hand, you can't go out job searching at 18 any more and nail down a good factory job to support a family of four any more... and on the other hand, you go away to school, rack up debt, and are lucky to land a job where you're just breaking even after bills and loans are paid. It's all screwed up. I agree with you guys there, I really do.

Where you guys lose me is your incessant tunnel vision, which is focused solely on "evil" profiteering corporations, taking away from the successful, and not focusing on so many of the institutional and governmental issues we have (let's face it, a lot of our tax money might as well go down a black hole for the lack of benefits you or I derive from it). Sure, some of those corporations have done some bad shit to people. But your guys' unforgiving rhetoric reaches a lot of honest small, medium, and yes, even large business owners and hurts them too when your policies make it into play. That's not the way America was designed in my eyes.

[Rip Rokken]

It's simple - you're advocating a bottom-up management structure. Pretty sad that a teacher couldn't see the connection.

yikes. okay young man, explain the connection, please. as a teacher i am always learning, seeking out new ideas, and never embarrassed to say "i don't get it," so please enlighten me.

[7 Wishes]

NEWS: HEALTH INSURANCE REQUIREMENT WAS A REPUBLICAN IDEA!!!!!

Well, well! The ultimate dose of hypocrisy! You Chickenhawk Five-worshipping neo-cons have NOTHING TO SAY about this issue anymore - since it was YOUR idea!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_overhaul_requiring_insurance

HERE ARE SOME HIGHLIGHTS:

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

Many economists believe it's a rational solution to America's health care dilemma since it would raise enough money to cover the uninsured and nudge people with coverage into cost-conscious plans.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate.

Tanden, now at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says she's confident the mandate will work. In Massachusetts, coverage has gone up and only a tiny fraction of residents have been hit with fines.

So....how, now, brown cow? I can't WAIT to see what you dittoheads have to say about THIS one. This should be a lark.

[Ehwmatt]

Well, well! The ultimate dose of hypocrisy! You Chickenhawk Five-worshipping neo-cons have NOTHING TO SAY about this issue anymore - since it was YOUR idea!!!

Yes, because the views of one Dickhead Nixon are certainly the views all on the right hold. You got us good dude.

[7 Wishes]

Can't you read? The ENTIRE PARTY SUPPORTED THIS and it was THEIR response to the universal healthcare idea in the 90's. It's YOUR idea and now you're saying it's going to be responsible for Armageddon and is part of a deliberate socialist takeover by the Obama Administration!! It just proves how poorly thought out the Republican rhetoric is...it's all soundbytes and keywords and 180's and hypocrisy.

[Lula]

Ok:

Obama is in favor of building up the middle class which is a direct threat to the wealthiest echelon.

Translated: Obama wants to manage the country from the bottom-up (between the lines of his strategy: for political gain/mass votes).

Hence the restaurant analogy.

Look, I agree that there are a lot of people who have serious problems in this country and some of them do work. But, the problem is, we don't have the resources to redistribute income right now. We just don't. I'm all for the dish washer getting a 10-20% raise, but not at the expense of the best chef in town... it just can't work that way long-term. It can't.

We have no manufacturing jobs in this country and higher education is a joke. You don't get a return on your investment any more, in many situations. On one hand, you can't go out job searching at 18 any more and nail down a good factory job to support a family of four any more... and on the other hand, you go away to school, rack up debt, and are lucky to land a job where you're just breaking even after bills and loans are paid. It's all screwed up. I agree with you guys there, I really do.

Where you guys lose me is your incessant tunnel vision, which is focused solely on "evil" profiteering corporations, taking away from the successful, and not focusing on so many of the institutional and governmental issues we have (let's face it, a lot of our tax money might as well go down a black hole for the lack of benefits you or I derive from it). Sure, some of those corporations have done some bad shit to people. But your guys' unforgiving rhetoric reaches a lot of honest small, medium, and yes, even large business owners and hurts them too when your policies make it into play. That's not the way America was designed in my eyes.

your translation is wrong.

i am all for profits. there would be no corporations, and in turn jobs, if there were no profits to be had. i am simply stating that corporations have found creative ways to manipulate and taken full advantage of the tax laws, as they should i suppose. if you want to equate what i'm stating to unforgiving rhetoric, so be it.

i find obama's position to support the middle class a much needed one and welcome it. i don't like the way the country has been run. i don't like seeing the corporations running things and getting all the advantages. you can take that anyway you want to. maybe you are a fat cat. me, i'm working hard and doing my best to raise my son. not ashamed to say i could use a break.

[Ehwmatt]

Can't you read? The ENTIRE PARTY SUPPORTED THIS and it was THEIR response to the universal healthcare idea in the 90's. It's YOUR idea and now you're saying it's going to be responsible for Armageddon and is part of a deliberate socialist takeover by the Obama Administration!! It just proves how poorly thought out the Republican rhetoric is...it's all soundbytes and keywords and 180's and hypocrisy.

Hold on a second there... the entire party? Here's what your little clip reads:

In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

So one think tank's position as of almost two decades ago now represents the entire party's views?

Here's a novel fucking concept for you: Not all on the right and left tow the same party line.

[Ehwmatt]

Ok:

Obama is in favor of building up the middle class which is a direct threat to the wealthiest echelon.

Translated: Obama wants to manage the country from the bottom-up (between the lines of his strategy: for political gain/mass votes).

Hence the restaurant analogy.

Look, I agree that there are a lot of people who have serious problems in this country and some of them do work. But, the problem is, we don't have the resources to redistribute income right now. We just don't. I'm all for the dish washer getting a 10-20% raise, but not at the expense of the best chef in town... it just can't work that way long-term. It can't.

We have no manufacturing jobs in this country and higher education is a joke. You don't get a return on your investment any more, in many situations. On one hand, you can't go out job searching at 18 any more and nail down a good factory job to support a family of four any more... and on the other hand, you go away to school, rack up debt, and are lucky to land a job where you're just breaking even after bills and loans are paid. It's all screwed up. I agree with you guys there, I really do.

Where you guys lose me is your incessant tunnel vision, which is focused solely on "evil" profiteering corporations, taking away from the successful, and not focusing on so many of the institutional and governmental issues we have (let's face it, a lot of our tax money might as well go down a black hole for the lack of benefits you or I derive from it). Sure, some of those corporations have done some bad shit to people. But your guys' unforgiving rhetoric reaches a lot of honest small, medium, and yes, even large business owners and hurts them too when your policies make it into play. That's not the way America was designed in my eyes.

your translation is wrong.

i am all for profits. there would be no corporations, and in turn jobs, if there were no profits to be had. i am simply stating that corporations have found creative ways to manipulate and taken full advantage of the tax laws, as they should i suppose. if you want to equate what i'm stating to unforgiving rhetoric, so be it.

i find obama's position to support the middle class a much needed one and welcome it. i don't like the way the country has been run. i don't like seeing the corporations running things and getting all the advantages. you can take that anyway you want to. maybe you are a fat cat. me, i'm working hard and doing my best to raise my son. not ashamed to say i could use a break.

Honest question: If you are against tax loop holes and what not, how would you feel about a 15% flat income tax on all corporations and persons, with appropriate exemptions for the appropriate % of poverty line?

[Lula]

Yes, because the views of one Dickhead Nixon are certainly the views all on the right hold. You got us good dude.

good ole tricky dick, the last republican president to balance the budget .

[7 Wishes]

"Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, most of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare."

""The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration."

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate."

BTW, it's "toe" the party line.

The most prominent and popular candidate to challenge Obama in 2012, one Mitchell Romney, spearheaded the insurance mandate as the key part of his bill to provide universal health care to Massachusetts residents. Additionally, a majority of GOP Senators and Congressmen were in office during the Clinton Administration and almost unanimously SUPPORTED the national mandate - which at the time was unpopular with Democrats.

So, yes, sir - it WAS a Republican idea, and it was backed by hordes of hypocritical dittohead mudslinging Fox-worshipping troglodytes who are now railing against it and vowing its repeal (which, by the way, will NEVER happen, since even if the GOP manages to gain a majority in the Senate and House, Obama will simply veto the legislation.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

"Conservatives today say that's unacceptable. Not long ago, most of them saw a national mandate as a free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare."

""The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration."

"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who failed in the 1990s to require employers to offer coverage, embraced the individual requirement, an idea advocated by her Republican opponents in the earlier health care debate."

BTW, it's "toe" the party line.

The most prominent and popular candidate to challenge Obama in 2012, one Mitchell Romney, spearheaded the insurance mandate as the key part of his bill to provide universal health care to Massachusetts residents. Additionally, a majority of GOP Senators and Congressmen were in office during the Clinton Administration and almost unanimously SUPPORTED the national mandate - which at the time was unpopular with Democrats.

So, yes, sir - it WAS a Republican idea, and it was backed by hordes of hypocritical dittohead mudslinging Fox-worshipping troglodytes who are now railing against it and vowing its repeal (which, by the way, will NEVER happen, since even if the GOP manages to gain a majority in the Senate and House, Obama will simply veto the legislation.

Yes its correct that many Republicans also championed individual madates - true just proves that the Republicans are as statist and misguided as the Democrats. It was after all a Republican president that abandoned the gold standard, which have made it possile to run up our current debt and create the current macroeconomic problems we currently have.

[conversationpc]

So, yes, sir - it WAS a Republican idea..

I don't remember Republicans or conservatives, for that matter, ever supporting the idea that people be mandated to have healthcare. Regardless, I couldn't care less. It's not what I believe is right. Never have. Never will.

[7 Wishes]

It was after all a Republican president that abandoned the gold standard, which have made it possile to run up our current debt and create the current macroeconomic problems we currently have.

Surely you're not referring to Ronald Reagan, who tripled the national debt while proposing $400 billion MORE in spending than was actually passed by the House and Congress - the man who not ONCE met with his Treasury Secretary to discuss fiscal or economic policy, and whose failures proved the fallacy that is the trickle-down theory?

[donnaplease]

It's certainly no secret that I'm not a BO fan. I try not to bash him for the sake of doing so though. However, after the few clips I saw of him speaking in Iowa the other day, I am utterly disgusted. He is the worst example of presidential honor I have ever witnessed. He goes to talk about the benefits of the health plan (as he sees it), and he turns it into a fucking campaign speech! They wanna do this and they wanna do that, and BRING IT ON! What a total fuckhead! He talks about bipartisanship, yet makes NO effort to respect his counterparts. He shows absolutely no respect for the office for which he holds, and I'm sick of it!

In the spirit of certain comments made around here, I hope he contracts some rare, painful, fatal disease... AND THEN HAS TO STAND IN LINE FOR TREATMENT!

Go ahead now, beat up on me. I know you want to. I don't give a fuck.

Guess he learned about respect from you !

Trust me, if I were ever fortunate enough (or stupid enough!) to hold the highest office in the land, I would have more respect for it than this jackass.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

It was after all a Republican president that abandoned the gold standard, which have made it possile to run up our current debt and create the current macroeconomic problems we currently have.

Surely you're not referring to Ronald Reagan, who tripled the national debt while proposing $400 billion MORE in spending than was actually passed by the House and Congress - the man who not ONCE met with his Treasury Secretary to discuss fiscal or economic policy, and whose failures proved the fallacy that is the trickle-down theory?

no Im not - Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1972 . which opened the door for the real explosion of public spending. But wilst you mention I agree the that the enormous government spending that Reagan undertook, was not a good thing. However, simpy stating that two Republican presidents abandoned two important tent that underpin free markets does not disprove the theory that free markets/economic freedom (what you call trickle down) create wealth for a greater number of people than other forms of economic organisation

[RedWingFan]

O

So, the fact that I don't come to the forum for 24 hours and don't respond to you "immediately" about something that is a common-knowledge fact means I'm "making stuff up"?

If it's common knowledge fact that Limbaugh was on welfare for 6 years, it should be easy to find the source. So do it Professor Jones.

A week or so ago factfinder posted a bs email and came right back in here and apologized. You come on here and spew flat out lies and run like a little bitch. Your posts are about as accurate as the bullshit from the White House. Fuckin' liars. No wonder you're such a ball licking fan of this administration.