• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I want to see the President fail

I want to see President Obama fail


  • Total voters
    46
that's a fair point. it's hard to avoid the urge to say "i told you so".
You actually believe that McCain would have done better. OH Please say that you don't believe that. Not that Obama is any great shakes but to think McCain would have done better is foolishness. He was the one running around just days before the bottom fell out saying the economy was just fine. Then he was suspending his campaign to fix the economy that he said wasn't broken. LOL and he would have done a better job. How naive to even think that.
 
yeah. i'm not really into the genre...but a friend wouldn't leave me alone until i agreed to read "the eye of the world".
i was hooked after that. i then adopted the "character" for a username. i use it quite a few places. i haven't even read
the books in the series after jordan died. i might sometime.

That's when I stopped reading too. I couldn't be convinced the ending was how the author would have wanted it. It may have been the way he wanted it, but I don't know and the booksellers will assure you of anything to get you to buy it. Ah well...
 
You actually believe that McCain would have done better. OH Please say that you don't believe that. Not that Obama is any great shakes but to think McCain would have done better is foolishness. He was the one running around just days before the bottom fell out saying the economy was just fine. Then he was suspending his campaign to fix the economy that he said wasn't broken. LOL and he would have done a better job. How naive to even think that.

mccain wouldn't have done "better" as far as our economy or "foreign policy". buti doubt he would have the nation as purposely divided
as obama does. obama is following alinsky's handbook nearly to a T.
 
That's when I stopped reading too. I couldn't be convinced the ending was how the author would have wanted it. It may have been the way he wanted it, but I don't know and the booksellers will assure you of anything to get you to buy it. Ah well...

when i see it at the library...i'll grab it. i can wait till then.
 
I just can't imagine why people can't see how awesome O'Bama really is.

Obama on unemployment: Don’t forget that those ATMs are taking jobs too « Hot Air

If that was sarcasm I missed the pitch. The video shows nothing bad about Obama's policies or not much anything at all. If anything, it's showing why it is very hard to simply create the jobs out of thin air like people want him to. It's not the President, it's the employers. They won't hire you when they have a machine that is basically You times five. Plus the machine/computer won't complain, won't get sick, and all that other human nonsense.

The next alternative for business to hiring an American is to outsource overseas where labor is cheap and they don't demand fair wages like you would. In many cases, hiring American's is usually the least desirable action for a business because they are not concerned about the country more than you buying their products. They want to maximize profits and reduce spending for themselves.
 
If that was sarcasm I missed the pitch. The video shows nothing bad about Obama's policies or not much anything at all. If anything, it's showing why it is very hard to simply create the jobs out of thin air like people want him to. It's not the President, it's the employers. They won't hire you when they have a machine that is basically You times five. Plus the machine/computer won't complain, won't get sick, and all that other human nonsense.

yes, it's sarcasm. I was pointing out O'Bama's idiocy.

The next alternative for business to hiring an American is to outsource overseas where labor is cheap and they don't demand fair wages like you would. In many cases, hiring American's is usually the least desirable action for a business because they are not concerned about the country more than you buying their products. They want to maximize profits and reduce spending for themselves.

So, it's not the fault of O'Bama's job killing policies, it's the private sector's fault, because they don't want to hire anyone?
 
mccain wouldn't have done "better" as far as our economy or "foreign policy". buti doubt he would have the nation as purposely divided
as obama does. obama is following alinsky's handbook nearly to a T.
The US was already divided when Obama took office. That change had been on its way since Clinton left office. It was already starting during his terms. The fiscal shape of the US was in trouble already. I don't make Obama into much but I know with the people out there he was certainly the best choice.
The debt was to large when he took office. He expanded it and I am not sure that makes it worse. It was already unmanageable.
 
yes, it's sarcasm. I was pointing out O'Bama's idiocy.

So, it's not the fault of O'Bama's job killing policies, it's the private sector's fault, because they don't want to hire anyone?

Firstly, The Stimulus and Jobs

Secondarily, For Example, when Nike chooses to hire Indians to make their shoes, because they demand less wages, that is a private sector American company choosing profits over America.

U.S. companies that moved out of the U.S. to pay less taxes.

Increase in overseas Jobs from Major American Companies at the cost of American Jobs

Yes, it's partially the private sector's fault.
 
Last edited:
The US was already divided when Obama took office. That change had been on its way since Clinton left office. It was already starting during his terms. The fiscal shape of the US was in trouble already. I don't make Obama into much but I know with the people out there he was certainly the best choice.
The debt was to large when he took office. He expanded it and I am not sure that makes it worse. It was already unmanageable.

no. that's the defeatist outlook. the debt was manageable after bush f**ked it up. all of europe had similar debt.
bush EXPANDED government. that was the problem. it wasn't tax cuts....it was spending. our government "representatives", within the past
few decades, have become such totally corrupt whores. they will sell anything to support their own corruption.
something could've been done after bush. but what did this anti-American piece of $h!t do? he tripled 8 years of bush spending in
less than 2 years.
the dollar is dying. china is the rising neo-superpower and no one cares.
 
Firstly, The Stimulus and Jobs

Secondarily, For Example, when Nike chooses to hire Indians to make their shoes, because they demand less wages, that is a private sector American company choosing profits over America.

U.S. companies that moved out of the U.S. to pay less taxes.

Increase in overseas Jobs from Major American Companies at the cost of American Jobs

Yes, it's partially the private sector's fault.

Less taxes? Wouldn't that be one of those government polices that effects job creation? Hmm?

Are you also aware that those international companies only make up about 5% of American based corporations?

This new talking point ya'll came up with is getting worse and worse.
 
Less taxes? Wouldn't that be one of those government polices that effects job creation? Hmm?

Are you also aware that those international companies only make up about 5% of American based corporations?

This new talking point ya'll came up with is getting worse and worse.

Bolded.

The Wall Street Journal said:
U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization's effect on the U.S. economy.

Read more: US Companies: hire abroad and fire at home

Also, note, I did not say it was entirely the fault of the private sector, only that it was partially the fault of the private sector.

Continuously, it doesn't matter to what degree those international corporations make up a part of American Corporations, what matters is the amount of impact they have, as Major Representatives of the Private Sector, on American Jobs.

That impact was 2.9 million or so lost in the face of 2.1 million gained Abroad. Nearly as much as Obama promised to save (and failed to do so entirely) with his stimulus package.

It is Partially the Private Sector's fault. End of the line.

Yes, less taxes is a government policy, but if we make them pay less taxes then the government gets less money from them for things like, oh, say The Military, or Roads, or Police, or Education, or Housing Subsidies.

Wouldn't that be awesome? All so we can keep greedy people here! Wooo!

It is not the burden of America to make things easier for American Corporations to the detriment of America. It is the Burden of American Corporations to be Loyal To America and to Bring Improvment to America. Yes, even a corporation has responsibility to the country in which it was founded and which supported it, and whose policies and laws allowed it to Become a multinational corporation in the first place! Otherwise they should not be allowed to call themselves American Corporations, and none of the ones on that list are anymore!
 
Last edited:
no. that's the defeatist outlook. the debt was manageable after bush f**ked it up. all of europe had similar debt.
bush EXPANDED government. that was the problem. it wasn't tax cuts....it was spending. our government "representatives", within the past
few decades, have become such totally corrupt whores. they will sell anything to support their own corruption.
something could've been done after bush. but what did this anti-American piece of $h!t do? he tripled 8 years of bush spending in
less than 2 years.
the dollar is dying. china is the rising neo-superpower and no one cares.
I am not a defender of Obama. I don't believe there was a better choice. His spending kept as it seems some things from collapse. The government since Reagan when out of control spending really took off has done nothing but waste. Recall Reagan said that debt meant nothing. Well here it is 2011 and the conservative icon was certainly wrong.
Now if you think that there is someone out there that will cut spending and the size of government you might want to point that person out. Not one President has ever done that. Not one. Republican or Democrat not one of them has cut government. So when I hear Conservatives say they will cut it look back at Reagan Bush Bush and you see that is a crock. When the Dem's say they will they haven't done it either.
But wanting a President to fail is asinine. That means you want the worst for your nation. If the persons policies don't work throw the person out. But you don't hope for failure.
 
I am not a defender of Obama. I don't believe there was a better choice. His spending kept as it seems some things from collapse. The government since Reagan when out of control spending really took off has done nothing but waste. Recall Reagan said that debt meant nothing. Well here it is 2011 and the conservative icon was certainly wrong.
Now if you think that there is someone out there that will cut spending and the size of government you might want to point that person out. Not one President has ever done that. Not one. Republican or Democrat not one of them has cut government. So when I hear Conservatives say they will cut it look back at Reagan Bush Bush and you see that is a crock. When the Dem's say they will they haven't done it either.
But wanting a President to fail is asinine. That means you want the worst for your nation. If the persons policies don't work throw the person out. But you don't hope for failure.

how do you correlate your beliefs here with the FACT that obama has outspent every US president in history combined?
how does your mind fathom this kind of self-delusion as truth?
 
how do you correlate your beliefs here with the FACT that obama has outspent every US president in history combined?
how does your mind fathom this kind of self-delusion as truth?
He has spent to try and assist the economy. In some cases it has helped. In others it is just another waste of dollars like so many other wasted dollars before like Iraq for example. How did you justify that Bush spent more than all the presidents before him? It is the same thing they both have wasted money. I would rather see the money spent on rebuilding the US than tearing down Iraq and rebuilding that though.
 
As PoTUS, Obama is quite easily the most important man to the future of America at the moment. His every job, his every idea, his every thought is for the betterment of our country.
The leader of the regime is a tyrant.

The one term president Obama has no interest in making America better. He is all about remaking America into a European-style socialist nation with Democrats in control as a defacto one party system reminiscent of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Do you want a good government job? Join the Communist party of the Uni..er, Democrat party. Do you want better health care? Join the Communist party of the Unit...er, Democrat party. With the death panel in place who will oppose him?
 
how do you correlate your beliefs here with the FACT that obama has outspent every US president in history combined?
how does your mind fathom this kind of self-delusion as truth?

And your source for the claim that Obama has outspent every US President in history "combined"?

BTW, Congress, not the Executive Branch is responsible for appropriations.

Bush's $10 Trillion tax cut is still alive and well. What role has it played in past and current national debt and deficits?

And Bush's screw-ups were manageable when Obama took office? How so? Don't feel bashful about including sources and links.


September 29 said:
With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush's presidency.

It's the biggest increase under any president in U.S history.

On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That's a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush's watch.

The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt – though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, "much if not all" of the bailout money "will be paid back."

But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion.

It'll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration.

In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion.
Read more: Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt

"Obama has spent more than every president in history combined"? That's pretty wild.
 
I never root for any president to fail. Even if I disagree with them I hope they eventually do GREAT for the best country ever. I personally believe rooting for your president to fail is wanting the country to fail which equals = Anti-American. I do find it to be a double-standard some want President Obama to fail but rooted for President Bush and his policies are the one who put us where we are. Even Republicans admit "Obama didn't put us into this mess" instead they say he's adding to it. I still believe the Bush economy is where we are today.
 
Last edited:
It seems apparent that Liberals will never be able to comprehend the wide-held belief that if Obama is able to get his policies to prevail, that the country will worsen, and that consequently, if Obama is unable to implement his policies, that the country will be better off.

To liberals, Obama cannot possibly be bad news. How pathetically naive.
 
It seems apparent that Liberals will never be able to comprehend the wide-held belief that if Obama is able to get his policies to prevail, that the country will worsen, and that consequently, if Obama is unable to implement his policies, that the country will be better off.

To liberals, Obama cannot possibly be bad news. How pathetically naive.

And Conservatives were the same way with George Bush. Continue your double-standards though.
 
And Conservatives were the same way with George Bush. Continue your double-standards though.

The issue would then be whether or not Democrats wanted Bush to fail. Guess what !! We know many Dems wanted Bush to fail. Wanted the wars to fail. Etc. And we don't give a **** what Democrats thought about Bush !

Meanwhile, in this thread, the Dems whine like stuck pigs because Republicans see Obama as a plague on the country. Get used to it. He's an inept unqualified boob.

The "double standard" is all yours.
 
The issue would then be whether or not Democrats wanted Bush to fail. Guess what !! We know many Dems wanted Bush to fail. Wanted the wars to fail. Etc. And we don't give a **** what Democrats thought about Bush !

Meanwhile, in this thread, the Dems whine like stuck pigs because Republicans see Obama as a plague on the country. Get used to it. He's an inept unqualified boob.

The "double standard" is all yours.

What Democrat wanted Bush to fail? I don't know any who wanted him to fail. Implying "YOU KNOW" and actually stating who did is different. I have never wanted any president to fail. And now you're whining about people whining. Guess that makes you a big baby whiny baby too! Double standard much? :doh
 
Back
Top Bottom