Lost without the teleprompter.

[T-TownVol]

BHO has moved on to "stimulating" the World ecomony

 

[hmanvolfan]

Don't get so upset Nancy.

Is that name calling? hmy: lol:

 

[allvol123]

Useless point maybe to you. Calling someone who was a constritutional law professor a constitutional moron, is revealing their ignorance of his background.

No it isn't. I am 100% sure MG knows that Obama studied and taught Constitutional Law. Thus he is not ignorant to Obama's background.

Continually pointing to someone's academic achievements as proof of their greatness on some subject, is a sheepish mentality.

 

[WA_Vol]

No it isn't. I am 100% sure MG knows that Obama studied and taught Constitutional Law. Thus he is not ignorant to Obama's background.

Continually pointing to someone's academic achievements as proof of their greatness on some subject, is a sheepish mentality.

I think the sheepish mentality is to believe someone who has studied and taught something for decades, but knows nothing about it.

 

[kptvol]

I think the sheepish mentality is to believe someone who has studied and taught something for decades, but knows nothing about it.

There's a difference between knowing a lot about something and understanding something.

 

[allvol123]

There's a difference between knowing a lot about something and understanding something.

Bingo.

 

[WA_Vol]

There's a difference between knowing a lot about something and understanding something.

The fact you believe someone spent decades studying a subject without having an in depth understanding says more then I can add.

 

[kptvol]

The fact you believe someone spent decades studying a subject without having an in depth understanding says more then I can add.

I suppose GWB is an expert at being President. We need to see if we can get him back in office.

 

[WA_Vol]

I suppose GWB is an expert at being President. We need to see if we can get him back in office.

I guarantee you if he had it to do over again, he would have done a lot of things differently based on what he's learned.

 

[kptvol]

I guarantee you if he had it to do over again, he would have done a lot of things differently based on what he's learned.

Does that mean if he could go in for a third term that he'd be a solid President?

 

[WA_Vol]

Does that mean if he could go in for a third term that he'd be a solid President?

No doubt you would be in here defending that he was.

 

[OWB]

I got your Nancy hanging little pal.

A sure fire sign you're a loser is when all you can come up with are silly puny insults.

C-ya round campus. :hi:

..

 

[kptvol]

No doubt you would be in here defending that he was.

That's what I thought.

 

[WA_Vol]

That's what I thought.

This is your line of reasoning.

You have someone who is a nuclear engineer, you take him out of that field and put him into computer science which he fails at. You then claim he must be a terrible nuclear engineer because he failed at computer science.

What BO does as President, has little to do with his ability as a Professor of Constitutional Law.

Since Grant was a poor President does that mean he must have been a bad Military Leader?

Since Bush was a bad President, does that mean he was a bad Governor of Texas?

 

[kptvol]

This is your line of reasoning.

You have someone who is a nuclear engineer, you take him out of that field and put him into computer science which he fails at. You then claim he must be a terrible nuclear engineer because he failed at computer science.

What BO does as President, has little to do with his ability as a Professor of Constitutional Law.

Since Grant was a poor President does that mean he must have been a bad Military Leader?

Since Bush was a bad President, does that mean he was a bad Governor of Texas?

That's not even close to my line of reasoning. Don't try thinking again. Now please remind again how much I love W.

 

[WA_Vol]

That's not even close to my line of reasoning. Don't try thinking again. Now please remind again how much I love W.

So you don't love W but you continue to vote Republican regardless of what kind of job they do.

 

[gsvol]

.

M I C

K E Y

When we consider "of men and mice," we readily see you are no Steinbeck.

Drama that you would be you little broom closet nazi.

 

[kptvol]

So you don't love W but you continue to vote Republican regardless of what kind of job they do.

Want to know how many times I voted for W? And you claim never to have voted for Obama, but I can't really recall the last time you made a post that wasn't in his defense.

 

[WA_Vol]

Want to know how many times I voted for W? And you claim never to have voted for Obama, but I can't really recall the last time you made a post that wasn't in his defense.

That's right I didn't vote for him. But I think he needs to be in office more then 70 days before I start making snap judgements on how poor a President he is.

I also voted for W., something which in hindsight was a mistake, but I doubt Kerry would have been that much better.

 

[KB5252]

That's right I didn't vote for him. But I think he needs to be in office more then 70 days before I start making snap judgements on how poor a President he is.

I also voted for W., something which in hindsight was a mistake, but I doubt Kerry would have been that much better.

I understand what you mean about judging him with so little time in office but I would like to ask you a legitimate question about your impression of him so far by his actions while in office. Do you like the tone he has set and do you think he is taking this country right direction?

I would argue that he is not doing what is best for the country so far. My reasoning is simple. At a time like this, with what the country is facing, it is not the time for "radical" changes. We should be taking small steps for recovery while thinking about the long term. Massive spending on anything other than what will jump start the economy is reckless. This is not the time for making a push toward socialized medicine, granted i don't believe it is a good idea for any reason but it certainly isn't responsible at this time. Before we take on such an expensive endeavor as this we should first figure out what we can do about our social security problem for example. We will not be able to continue at this rate for much longer, adding something this expensive is a problem, especially right now.

This is just one example of my problems with Obama thus far, he just isn't giving me any reason to believe he is going to do what this country needs to succeed, in fact he seems to be making a problem he inherited from Bush even worse, JMO.

 

[allvol123]

That's right I didn't vote for him. But I think he needs to be in office more then 70 days before I start making snap judgements on how poor a President he is.
.

How many more countries does he have to go to and apologize for the US being the US, before you'll make a judgement?

 

[volinbham]

How do we define performance as president? Is it outcomes or actions/leadership?

Based on what I've seen so far, I'm quite disturbed by what I see Obama doing. His vision, views, and choices all go against what I believe and value. Does that mean he's a poor president? Depends on the criteria. He's actually been quite effective at pushing his agenda so he rates high on that. However, I believe the outcomes if he continues to enact his agenda will be the wrong direction for the country. So his success to date makes him a poor president from that perspective.

And he's a teleprompter toting, bad gift giving POTUS too!

 

[WA_Vol]

I understand what you mean about judging him with so little time in office but I would like to ask you a legitimate question about your impression of him so far by his actions while in office. Do you like the tone he has set and do you think he is taking this country right direction?

I would argue that he is not doing what is best for the country so far. My reasoning is simple. At a time like this, with what the country is facing, it is not the time for "radical" changes. We should be taking small steps for recovery while thinking about the long term. Massive spending on anything other than what will jump start the economy is reckless. This is not the time for making a push toward socialized medicine, granted i don't believe it is a good idea for any reason but it certainly isn't responsible at this time. Before we take on such an expensive endeavor as this we should first figure out what we can do about our social security problem for example. We will not be able to continue at this rate for much longer, adding something this expensive is a problem, especially right now.

This is just one example of my problems with Obama thus far, he just isn't giving me any reason to believe he is going to do what this country needs to succeed, in fact he seems to be making a problem he inherited from Bush even worse, JMO.

Most of your concerns are legitimate and I agree he's been disappointing on several levels so far. I'm not disputing that spending isn't overblown but other then remove the stimulus bill for job creation and pork barrel projects there's not a lot he could do.

Most of the deficit spending it to fund AIG, GMC, and the Iraq and Afghan Wars. There's not a lot he can do to bring the majority of the spending down. Does anyone honestly expect he's going to let GMC and AIG go bankrupt and pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? He largely inherited those problems from the previous administration in my view.

My personal feeling is the democrats are going to lose seats in Congress at the midterm election if they dont change course on several issues.

To me most of the anger should be at the person who largely created the problem through poor decisions, i.e. Bush invading Iraq, or ignored a problem until it ballooned out of control, i.e. the housing bubble. :twocents:

 

[KB5252]

Most of your concerns are legitimate and I agree he's been disappointing on several levels so far. I'm not disputing that spending isn't overblown but other then remove the stimulus bill for job creation and pork barrel projects there's not a lot he could do.

Most of the deficit spending it to fund AIG, GMC, and the Iraq and Afghan Wars. There's not a lot he can do to bring the majority of the spending down. He largely inherited those problems from the previous administration in my view.

My personal feeling is the democrats are going to lose seats in Congress at the midterm election if they dont change course on several issues.

To me most of the anger should be at the person who largely created the problem, i.e. Bush invading Iraq, ignoring the Housing bubble instead of at the person who is now forced to repair the problem. :twocents:

I agree he didn't do enough to stop the housing bubble but he did address it and was rebuked by those who were involved with Fannie and Freddie. Let us not place all the blame at the feet of Bush. There were many powerful Democrats and Republicans who were directly benefiting from that same bubble. I look at it more as a failure of government that was brewing for some time, much longer than the two terms of one president. It was obvious that any action he tried to take concerning the bubble was going to be hotly contested by the democrats who were in control and pushing the buttons at that time.

As for Iraq there is room for debate, although in the end I believe we gained something very valuable (beyond monetary value) in the region. Some will think it was worth it others will not but there is no debating we have capabilities close to Iran that will give us some leverage. It also doesn't hurt that we have terrorist fighting us on two fronts and are focusing their efforts there instead of our soil. Another large scale terrorist attack would be very hard for us to survive this time.

 

[WA_Vol]

I will always view that the President sets policy for the nation, and Bush campaigned heavily on home ownership as the cornerstone of his economic policy. In hindsight, he should have been trying to regulate the number of bad loans banks were making. Congress went along with his policy, but for most of Bush's presidency, the first 6 years, the Republicans were in the majority.