• 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!

Is Obama a good president?[W:577]

Is Obama a good president?


  • Total voters
    176
The empire collapsed because they had archaic technology at a time when rapid technological change was essential. Computers, telecommunications, and falling energy prices took down the Soviets. Saying the three Western Leaders did it is like saying Obama lowered the sea level. :roll:

interesting. I didn't know that. I mean it makse sense they were behind in tech, but I had though it was internal divisions
or human rights, or simple centrifical forces that split the Empire.' (as empire tend to dissolve by nationalism)


I'd like to read about this, do you have any source(s) I could look at? Or is this your general knowledge?
 
I give Obama high rating for mediocrity...a kind assessment, considering his complety screwed up foreign policy - which is an ( F-)
 
My vote went to AVERAGE.

I worked free of charge for the campaign in the last months of the 08 campaign and I had very high hopes that we would see the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt and the Hundred Days. When I saw the big majorities he had in both houses of Congress and his appointment of Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of staff - my hopes soared even higher.

What I have gotten in return is a series of disappointments and let downs. Sure - a Republican would have been ten times worse if he allowed his right wing to pull him by the nose. But the only real thing Obama has accomplished is the health care law and even that is a watered down version of a republican idea to begin with.

We will see six years of very little actually being accomplished and I fault his first two years and his timidity to go head to head with the conservatives for that. He had the nation behind him. He had the numbers in Congress. And he blew it pure and simple.

Yes, I give him good marks for economic recovery to some degree. That is his positive progress and it is no small accomplishment given that the right wing was willing to keep the economy in the tank just to have Obama fail. So that is a positive area.

The only thing separating him from a failed Jimmy Carter presidency is a giant failure issue like the Olympic boycott which marred and scarred Carter. If that happens in the next three years, he could go from AVERAGE to FAILURE.
 
He did pronounce on his nomination that "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"- and people actually cheered! Hard to look back and actually read those speeches now. What were people thinking???

Well I agree that he was a little melodramatic with some of his speeches and writings, but what president isn't? I think you have to be a special kind of narcissist to even WANT to be the President of the United States. Thank God for narcissists! :lol:
 
The empire collapsed because they had archaic technology at a time when rapid technological change was essential. Computers, telecommunications, and falling energy prices took down the Soviets. Saying the three Western Leaders did it is like saying Obama lowered the sea level. :roll:

Have you read what the Soviet Leaders themselves had to say? Are you accusing them of lying?

They blame Reagan. Yhe American and European left are so determined not to give Ronald "Raygun" any credit they will distort history in order to place it elsewhere. What is wrong with giving your President the credit he deserves? Has America really turned on itself to that extent? You should be proud of what Americans did.
 
Thanks for that. I clearly underestimated the man. Does this mean he also solved the global warming problem?

Clearly this speech was Obama's "Sermon on the Mount". He led the jobless and forelorn down to the beach, waved his hands over the troubled waters and healed them, preventing the devil and the devils plan to raise the ocean levels and swallow up prized real estate. Praise be to Obama. <Amen>
 
Well I agree that he was a little melodramatic with some of his speeches and writings, but what president isn't? I think you have to be a special kind of narcissist to even WANT to be the President of the United States. Thank God for narcissists! :lol:

Yes, you're probably right but even the worst narcissist should have some record of competence in a couple of areas before they gain higher office. Stopping the oceans from rising is fine but how about balancing a budget, as promised? Some thought should have been given to the more mundane things.
 
Clearly this speech was Obama's "Sermon on the Mount". He led the jobless and forelorn down to the beach, waved his hands over the troubled waters and healed them, preventing the devil and the devils plan to raise the ocean levels and swallow up prized real estate. Praise be to Obama. <Amen>

And he did this despite the oceans being many miles away. With a wave of his hand he was able to divert tsunamis to Indonesia rather than to the homes of his friends in Malibu! We are blessed that he walks among us.

Well, he is usually in a limo with several hundred special agents surrounding him, with a sign language expert and a teleprompter, but you get my drift.
 
Have you read what the Soviet Leaders themselves had to say? Are you accusing them of lying?

They blame Reagan. Yhe American and European left are so determined not to give Ronald "Raygun" any credit they will distort history in order to place it elsewhere. What is wrong with giving your President the credit he deserves? Has America really turned on itself to that extent? You should be proud of what Americans did.

Prove Reagan had a massively overwhelming effect on the Soviet Unions collapse.

The dissolution of the soviet union and the warsaw pact is so much more complex than "Reagan" and anyone with even a slight historical knowledge of the times knows that.

There was many political factors, military factors, social factors and economic factors that lead to the ultimate conclusion that saying "Reagan ended the Soviet Union" is so ignorant it defies imagination.

But I suppose you believe whatever your right wing american masters tell you to believe so I shouldn't be surprised.
 
interesting. I didn't know that. I mean it makse sense they were behind in tech, but I had though it was internal divisions
or human rights, or simple centrifical forces that split the Empire.' (as empire tend to dissolve by nationalism)


I'd like to read about this, do you have any source(s) I could look at? Or is this your general knowledge?
I didn't really think about it until I read this piece. But, of course, once I did, it was a eureka moment. Moving forward since the 1980's meant being nimble, which really means relying on ever advancing technologies, primarily computers and telecommunication.

Reagan’s conviction that the Soviet Union was both a dangerous military power and a collapsing economic system derived not from any deep knowledge of the Soviet Union. Yet he proved to be the proverbial right man in the right place at the right time. By whatever means he arrived at his views regarding the Soviet Union, he drew from them policy directions that were devastatingly effective in undermining the rotten Soviet edifice. Because of the high oil prices of the 1970s the Soviet leadership avoided serious economic reforms, such as those that saved Deng Xiaoping’s China. Instead, it relied on oil revenues as a means of keeping its decrepit economy going. By the early 1980s the Soviet Union was becoming a hollow shell, with an unreformed and increasingly backward industrial base producing outmoded pre-computer armaments. Thus it was highly vulnerable to the pressures that the Reagan administration was planning.

But, as much as the USSR being relatively backward and low-tech compared to Silicon Valley and Western Washington, energy problems are what I believe mostly sunk the Soviets. Falling prices globally and more difficulty extracting what was left. Again, technology.

The fall of the Soviet Union, wrote Gaidar in a 2007 paper, "should serve as a lesson to those who construct policy based on the assumption that oil prices will remain perpetually high."

...in the mid-1980s, Soviet oil production topped off at 12 million barrels a day due to poor management, old technology and lack of investment. And then oil production started to drop. As oil fields ran dry, the authorities spent more cash to coax more petroleum from aging reservoirs with massive water flooding programs...

Just before Soviet oil production peaked in 1988 (the event walked hand in hand with a major drop in oil prices), the empire realized that it no longer had enough black gold to pay its bills.

The Tyee – What Really Killed Soviet Union? Oil Shock?
 
Have you read what the Soviet Leaders themselves had to say? Are you accusing them of lying?
So now you believe the Soviets...when it's convenient?

They blame Reagan. Yhe American and European left are so determined not to give Ronald "Raygun" any credit they will distort history in order to place it elsewhere. What is wrong with giving your President the credit he deserves? Has America really turned on itself to that extent? You should be proud of what Americans did.
I don't kneel down and fellate a president. I look to facts and let them tell me why the USSR collapsed.

These are the facts.
The Tyee – What Really Killed Soviet Union? Oil Shock?
 
Prove Reagan had a massively overwhelming effect on the Soviet Unions collapse.

The dissolution of the soviet union and the warsaw pact is so much more complex than "Reagan" and anyone with even a slight historical knowledge of the times knows that.

There was many political factors, military factors, social factors and economic factors that lead to the ultimate conclusion that saying "Reagan ended the Soviet Union" is so ignorant it defies imagination.

But I suppose you believe whatever your right wing american masters tell you to believe so I shouldn't be surprised.

It's actually quite stunning to witness all the Reagan worship we see here. And, the overall irony is these are the same people that accuse anyone who supports or defends Obama as a "Messiah worshiper". The cognizant dissonance is amazing.
 
Thanks for that. I clearly underestimated the man. Does this mean he also solved the global warming problem?

No one said he did it...not even him.
 
So now you believe the Soviets...when it's convenient?

After the fall the Soviet leaders blamed it on trhe policies of Ronald Reagan. You probably have other sources, but I find that what the Soiets had to say to be more informative in this case. Why is it "convenient" to quote what those mpst involved have to say? Does that mean it is 'inconvenient' for you?

I don't kneel down and fellate a president.
Well maybe someday. In the meantime you can continue trying to work your way up the social ladder..


These are the facts, with a question mark at the end??
 
My vote went to AVERAGE.

I worked free of charge for the campaign in the last months of the 08 campaign and I had very high hopes that we would see the second coming of Franklin Roosevelt and the Hundred Days. When I saw the big majorities he had in both houses of Congress and his appointment of Rahm Emanuel to be Chief of staff - my hopes soared even higher.
My heart sank when he nominated Rahm and Tim. Both are the Banksters' buddies. Next he threw Monsanto-puppet Vilsack on Agriculture, and I knew it was going to be business as usual.

What I have gotten in return is a series of disappointments and let downs. Sure - a Republican would have been ten times worse if he allowed his right wing to pull him by the nose. But the only real thing Obama has accomplished is the health care law and even that is a watered down version of a republican idea to begin with.

We will see six years of very little actually being accomplished and I fault his first two years and his timidity to go head to head with the conservatives for that. He had the nation behind him. He had the numbers in Congress. And he blew it pure and simple.

Yes, I give him good marks for economic recovery to some degree. That is his positive progress and it is no small accomplishment given that the right wing was willing to keep the economy in the tank just to have Obama fail. So that is a positive area.

The only thing separating him from a failed Jimmy Carter presidency is a giant failure issue like the Olympic boycott which marred and scarred Carter. If that happens in the next three years, he could go from AVERAGE to FAILURE.
Obama turned out to be a Center-Right, pro-business puppet who had little stomach for a fight. He supported big banks, big insurance and big oil. He backed off on every major initiative the Left asked of him.

One reason why I laugh at the Tea Party and our Conservative friends on the Far Right is that they still think he is Ceaser Chavez. Obama is Ronald Reagan.
 
That's why the question.

Obama did nothing but sit and watch as climate changed itself...kind of like Reagan when he watched the Soviets slowly sink toward their inevitable collapse.
 
But I suppose you believe whatever your right wing american masters tell you to believe so I shouldn't be surprised.

What is the matter with you?? Can't you read where I said it was the Soviets who said Reagan was responsible, and not any "right wing American masters".
 
What is the matter with you?? Can't you read where I said it was the Soviets who said Reagan was responsible, and not any "right wing American masters".

Which soviets said this?

How fast can you google and post the first result you found without reading it?
 
But I suppose you believe whatever your right wing american masters tell you to believe so I shouldn't be surprised.

WOW. Says the guy who freaked out over any disparaging words concerning Nelson Mandela.
 
Which soviets said this?

How fast can you google and post the first result you found without reading it?

Do you really believe I can take anyone who says things like "right wing American masters" seriously? You're a waste of time.
 
No thanks. If he ever said such a thing there would be quotes about it and it would be easy enough to find without reading an entire novel. :roll: I don't even like Obama, but that was such a ridiculous allegation that has no evidence to back it up that I had to say something.

What could be the proof that Obama imagines himself to be a God? If he performed miracles, then we could believe that he is God, or at least the son of God and not an African student. But he can't perform miracles. He can't perform even normal presidential job. He surrounded himself with "kings" as Jesus with his followers and they create ugliness as them god-Obama wants.
 
Yes, you're probably right but even the worst narcissist should have some record of competence in a couple of areas before they gain higher office. Stopping the oceans from rising is fine but how about balancing a budget, as promised? Some thought should have been given to the more mundane things.

:lol: I love that line! Well, you make a good point. I'm not saying that I'm happy with the status quo that's for sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom