His defenders always point to the econimic improvements from when he assumed office. I would think average household income would be a true barometer if that's true for the non 1 percenters.
Obama legacy
- Thread starter NovaHoops2002
- Start date
I just always see you defending him on here, what about his administration have you not liked that has been done?
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
I genuinely do not have any background with or interest in hockey. Not just being contrarian.
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
That's like you or me giving him $1.35. Still waiting for a Bush Foundation donor list...
"Still waiting for a Bush Foundation donor list..."
Saudi's gave the Bush's much more $$ for a longer time.
Saud's have a young 30 something new defense leader who is out of control. Bombing rebels & many civilians for months in Yemen.
If our press was free & fair it would criticize the Saud's 24/7 for lack of freedom to it's people (subjects), widespread sponsor of terrorism & daily war crimes.
Saudi's gave the Bush's much more $$ for a longer time.
Saud's have a young 30 something new defense leader who is out of control. Bombing rebels & many civilians for months in Yemen.
If our press was free & fair it would criticize the Saud's 24/7 for lack of freedom to it's people (subjects), widespread sponsor of terrorism & daily war crimes.
Whatever the Clinton's received it was because of how Hillary helped rebuild Wall St. after 9-11, not because she was beholden to anyone. She has no integrity and is going to get mulled for that remark. Amazing someone as seasoned as her uttered that line. Especially since she knew that attack was coming. It goes to show she had no shame and Hubris has no bounds. No one on her staff told her to throw that line out? Wow.
Last edited:
Is what Hillary said wrong when she said it's "We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression"?
Would you consider the Branch Davidians radical Christians and the government back in Waco just going after radical Christianity?
Please. If you cannot acknowledge the enemy why do I trust you to lead us in fight? Is saying radical Islam wrong? No, we could go round-and-round all day on if statements are accurate. When the liberal french President can acknowledge what he's allowed to fester in his own country, it's time to stop the charade. I'm sitting there last night watching the debate and all 3 of the candidates couldn't even bring themselves to say "radical Islam" or back off the idea of allowing up to 65,000 Syrian refugees into this country. Hillary talks of how we'll have the best screening system. In the words of John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious". Does anyone trust the ability to screen these nameless, faceless people when the enemy has specifically stated they will use this process to sneak people into free countries, as they did with the Paris attackers? Wake up people. If you want to lead our country, first acknowledge the enemy, radical Islam (which does not make all Islam bad, it's radical = bad), and don't double down on a bad campaign position because you believe at one point it polled well. Enough is enough. We're too worried about offending everyone, be in kids in Mizzou or Islam. We need to start asking real questions and demanding the people seeking our votes and leading us to quit trying to pander to every segment in search of a few votes. What about the broader issue of security and accountability for both or leaders and those claiming to be wronged/in need of our help?
The point is simple, there is a price to pay for a strategy of appeasement and failed foreign affairs. When you're in a hole, stop digging. You and I will never agree. That's fine. No one is attacking an entire religion as you try to suggest. However, there is a real world price when you fail to confront and acknowledge what's happening. There is no debate, Obama's foreign policy has been a complete failure and it has real consequences. None of the issues that have come to bare since Friday are new. However, the few remaining souls who try to defend this Administration simply look more silly than before. Hours before the attack you have our President spiking the football saying the enemy is contained. Luckily for him he doesn't fly commercial Russian jetliners. So you can continue making the case to open our borders to these refugees and make sure you don't offend anyone by calling it what it is, radical Islam. If I were Muslim, I'd be much more offended by those who have bastardized my religion than the people rightfully calling out these fringe maniacs. Regardless, those policies of appeasement and opening our borders aren't smart given what we are facing. I think most will come to agree with that view as in light of recent events it's tough to argue against.
Obama was given a disastrous set of cards on both domestic and foreign by his predecessor. However he still has to own the results.
I give him an "OK" on domestic economic policy. He did a reasonably good job of rebounding the economy. The world economy has been a total mess for the duration, and the US has actually outperformed most of the first world countries, if not all. He hasn't helped on regulations and obligations and has hurt the small business sector with his BS. But results are results, and we haven't slipped backwards, so I say decent job overall. I'll throw him a B-minus there.
On social issues we're a wreck right now, whether it's race or class warfare, and he hasn't helped the situation. I guess it's playing to their constituency but the Democratic party pandering to much of what is going on seems like it's not good for the country. A message about personal responsibility would help (think JFK -- stop asking the country to do everything for you). C-minus at best.
Foreign policy is a complete mess as well. Again, got a real bad hand from W, but he's actually made it worse. Even with his awful Iraq endeavor W was overall better than this. D-plus.
Overall, not very good, but not as horrendous as some make it out to be. I believe he was better than W but that's not saying much.
I give him an "OK" on domestic economic policy. He did a reasonably good job of rebounding the economy. The world economy has been a total mess for the duration, and the US has actually outperformed most of the first world countries, if not all. He hasn't helped on regulations and obligations and has hurt the small business sector with his BS. But results are results, and we haven't slipped backwards, so I say decent job overall. I'll throw him a B-minus there.
On social issues we're a wreck right now, whether it's race or class warfare, and he hasn't helped the situation. I guess it's playing to their constituency but the Democratic party pandering to much of what is going on seems like it's not good for the country. A message about personal responsibility would help (think JFK -- stop asking the country to do everything for you). C-minus at best.
Foreign policy is a complete mess as well. Again, got a real bad hand from W, but he's actually made it worse. Even with his awful Iraq endeavor W was overall better than this. D-plus.
Overall, not very good, but not as horrendous as some make it out to be. I believe he was better than W but that's not saying much.
I value competency over experience screwing things up. Given the hard lessons we're learning today, I'm confident we won't repeat this most recent mistake. We have seen what happens when we elect a leader who does not has the right temperament or belief to confront our enemies and engage where our interests require. Aloof certainly is not the answer. We won't make that mistake again.
I can only imagine the joy of going down a rabbit hole with adp when talking about foreign policy failures....but I'd love to know which GOP front runner you are getting behind...the completely inexperienced and divisive Trump or the equally inexperienced and out of touch Carson? You mentioned aloof, so I can't imagine Carson is your guy:
I can only imagine the joy of going down a rabbit hole with adp when talking about foreign policy failures....but I'd love to know which GOP front runner you are getting behind...the completely inexperienced and divisive Trump or the equally inexperienced and out of touch Carson? You mentioned aloof, so I can't imagine Carson is your guy:
LGBlue.
Barack was not responsible for the date of American forces from Iraq. George W negotiated
A Status of Forces Agreement in 2008. It included the time for the withdrawal.
Rubio is my choice.I can only imagine the joy of going down a rabbit hole with adp when talking about foreign policy failures....but I'd love to know which GOP front runner you are getting behind...the completely inexperienced and divisive Trump or the equally inexperienced and out of touch Carson? You mentioned aloof, so I can't imagine Carson is your guy:
Unlike you, I can acknowledge when members of my party have faults. In this case, no business being President. Carson and Trump are no more serious than Bernie. I cannot imagine how anyone is supporting Clinton at this point. Oh wait, because the alternative is Bernie.
Last edited:
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
“Look, there was a clear intent to bury these debates to the benefit of Clinton,” said another Democratic campaign official on Sunday afternoon. “And it is doing a disservice to the Democratic Party. The GOP is blowing out numbers — and we are protecting Hillary Clinton."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-clinton-sanders-omalley-215909#ixzz3rcl7Jc67
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-clinton-sanders-omalley-215909#ixzz3rcl7Jc67
NickleDimer
Post 'Til Your Fingers Bleed
I still love you, buddy. That one was such a humongous leap that I didn't even know where to begin. Sorry. If you'd like to take a week to think it over and try again, I won't deduct any additional points.
This was yet another moronic Bush move.
First one was removing SH from power in Iraq.
Second was signing anything that sets a date for completion of military actions. Define the objectives - leave when the objectives are accomplished. In this case the foreign policy was so broken that the objectives were nonsense from the beginning.