• 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!

America's Fed Up: Obama Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low, Poll Shows [W:256]

From your link, in reference to the Bush budget he sized: . . . its record size . . .

More:

That $1.2 trillion projected deficit — the result of bills signed by Republican President George W. Bush — grew substantially after Obama signed his stimulus bill and submitted his own budget. But even so, by the time the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, the actual deficit was $1.4 trillion, CBO said.

(snip)

. Bush’s lowest annual deficit was just under $158 billion in fiscal 2002. It reached nearly $459 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2008, and, as we mentioned, was on track to reach $1.2 trillion by the time Obama took office.

A Texas-size Whopper

Aw, excuse me but the CBO PROJECTED deficit included 700 billion for TARP and again please show me the signed Bush budget? You don't seem to comprehend that the fiscal year of the U.S. ISN't from October to January
 
Well, there probably is some truth to that, it is a strange one, and we let them have nukes!! However, we worked with them during the Reagan administration. While we were supplying shoulder mounted SAM's to the Mujahideen, the Pakistanis were supplying the directive and training and mostly running the Russian (USSR) opposition.

Pakistan also supported groups that destabilized Afghanistan, including the Taliban.
 
Pakistan also supported groups that destabilized Afghanistan, including the Taliban.

Oh yeah, for sure. In fact, arming the militant Islamic group Mujahideen, created the power vacuum that brought down the DRA and gave rise to the Taliban who gave quarter to al Qaeda who in turned attacked us on 9/11. See what happens when we allow and excuse presidents to run covert operations.
 
Well I certainly didn't mean any Offense to you sir. But from my reading of your positions on the various issues here, I would put you in the right wing, not necessarily "Teabagger or something" position. And in fairness, though I haven't seen anything you've posted on Reagan, Nixon and 41. If you have criticised them on issues in which they were wrong, and if you have praised Clinton and Obama on issues where they have been right, then I'll put you in the objective category, and not in the partisan.


I have yet to find much about Obama to praise. I called him "an illusionist with no ideals" some weeks before the '08 election and he hasn't failed to deliver.

For the record, the Bush Republicans, both, were in the tradition of what I expect of right wing politicians in the US, all about lining the pockets of their friends...while American cheered the killing of Iraqi's, I was asking about all these contractors with huge political ties to the Republican party.

For the record...I am about the strongest proponent of universal, single pay medical coverage on this board. The move into Obamacare is the furthest thing from a reasonable solution and only makes the whole problem worse as insurance companies will forever gouge the public on the absolute critical issues of health.

One of my many criticisms of Obama is that he failed to deliver on the whole equal rights for gays he promised, he's avoid the LGBT debate all together, and did not use his majority in the first two years to legalize pot..nor did he even address the issue when it came up at the state level. I consider that cowardice. He has also failed to adress the issue of pension deficits and protection for the elderly who lost their retirement, and that is shameful. Is that right wing? and yes, Bush did too...

I have condemned the right and NRA goons for much of the gun violence in America and the militarization of your streets, especially the fact I have ****ing assault rifles in my face if and when I come to visit. I have condemned both Iraq wars, Canada's participation in Afghanistan and the current Canadian government's move for American style 'crime busting laws' like mandatory minimum sentences. I have also very much criticized Obama for not fixing the illegals problem, where children of illegals are technically citizens...where he could have - first address the half million per year still coming in, THEN seek a compromise on amnesty.

The Patriot Act was the nail in the coffin of rights and freedoms in America as the right wing, fear mongering propaganda machine has convinced everyone there is a looming terrorist attack in Clodville, Kansas.

I suggest if you see right wing in there, you may be the one to have a bias.
 
Obama could save a great portion of his Presidency tomorrow night when addressing the nation with 3 little words. "I was wrong". Those 3 little words followed by a game changing plan on our FP, one where there is a collaboration with the GOP, with the War Machine, the MIC, one where a clear and bold, decisive plan toward achieving our objectives is presented and then followed through.

"I was wrong" he just has to say. "I was wrong but we tried." That's it. "I was wrong. We tried the carrot, now it's time for the stick."

He says that and he shoots 30 points up in the polls overnight.
 
Oh yeah, for sure. In fact, arming the militant Islamic group Mujahideen, created the power vacuum that brought down the DRA and gave rise to the Taliban who gave quarter to al Qaeda who in turned attacked us on 9/11. See what happens when we allow and excuse presidents to run covert operations.

So we should have let the Soviet Union do what it wanted in Afghanistan?
 
So we should have let the Soviet Union do what it wanted in Afghanistan?

Yes, it was better then supporting militant Islamists which have been eating our lunch. What have we lost now, 10,000 American lives to them, more. What have we spent in money in the ME since 1980, how many trillions of dollars, and the bitches are stronger now then ever. US policy in the ME for decades equals FAIL!
 
Yes, it was better then supporting militant Islamists which have been eating our lunch. What have we lost now, 10,000 American lives to them, more. What have we spent in money in the ME since 1980, how many trillions of dollars, and the bitches are stronger now then ever. US policy in the ME for decades equals FAIL!

So we should have let Cuba recieve nuclear missiles from the ussr? (Aka the Cuban missile crisis)
 
So we should have let Cuba recieve nuclear missiles from the ussr? (Aka the Cuban missile crisis)

No, and I see no similarities whatsoever. Denying Cuba nuclear missiles, compares how exactly with supporting militant Islamic groups who we only have to fight latter, and who show up on our shores with attacks like 9/11.
 
"I see liberalism/progressivism/socialism/Marxism/statism/fascism as a continuum of totalitarians whose main differences involve their tools of tyranny and implementation speed. All run counter to the ideal of individual liberty and freedom this nation was founded upon."
Fascism is mostly supported by conservatives,
No. It isn't. Mussolini was not a conservative. He was a left-wing socialist. He was you.
as evidenced by their support for such policies as warrantless wiretapping,
Show me a Constitutional Conservative who supports warrantless wiretapping outside of intelligence gathering. If you can.

extrajudicial detention,
Tell me what you mean. Then we can reasonably discuss it.

funding of overseas wars via taxation, . . .
LOL. This is humorous. How does one pay for wars? Cheerleader car washes?

Tell me more. We can begin with fascism, if you want. Or choose your own starting point. Let's see where it goes.
 
Yes, it was better then supporting militant Islamists which have been eating our lunch. What have we lost now, 10,000 American lives to them, more. What have we spent in money in the ME since 1980, how many trillions of dollars, and the bitches are stronger now then ever. US policy in the ME for decades equals FAIL!
Certainly this president, an Islamofascist Supporter, has failed.

We could develop all of our own power resources using market forces. That would lessen the need for intervention in the Middle East.
 
I reviewed the OP and much of the thread...

I don't see where there is a direct comparison to Bush in the OP




Merely stating what most of this thread supports, is that the progressives have drank from the polling numbers well for five and a half years,. and now that that support is sliding, as was predicted by one person at least, me, shortly after the last election, and continued through the stupid pride based dick wagging with congress.

While the Obama-as-hero gang has insisted there is "nothing to" the criticisms I and others have been raising, his numbers are tumbling. With now weeks before the mid terms, they rabidly cling to the claim Obama will regain majorities in both houses, that there is no error in his administration or policies, their only response when confronted with the cold truth of polling results lagging, is to say, as you do, "what about Bush?"

Again, it's about what's happening now and in the near future...as in mid terms, as in the last gasp of the Obama administration in which he may even face Bush's low numbers. Let's face it, if he loses congress to the people he called "enemies" and has been bashing for six years, what chances do you think are they going to let him use the White House toilet?

can you see some "executive branch" cost cutting which he will have to veto?

Hey, the crap has only begun to flow backward.....I suspect there's some "traitors and terrorists" who would like some pay back.....and they are going to get it.


OMG! THANK YOU!!!!:cool:
 
And what exact facts would that be? I am waiting for facts but you post opinions and pass them off as fact. The Treasury, BEA.gov, BLS.gov, and Census provides facts. You wanted links, I gave them to you but as I thought that was a waste of time

The facts are Obama's numbers are actually better than Bush's. If you look at the links, you'll see that.
 
Aw, excuse me but the CBO PROJECTED deficit included 700 billion for TARP and again please show me the signed Bush budget? You don't seem to comprehend that the fiscal year of the U.S. ISN't from October to January

Again, read the link. Pay attention to each word.
 
Certainly this president, an Islamofascist Supporter, has failed.

We could develop all of our own power resources using market forces. That would lessen the need for intervention in the Middle East.

Agreed, all intervention in the ME has been about oil. Jimmy Carter's energy policy was aimed at developing our own energy resources. Remember he turned the thermostat down and wore a sweater in the White House, installed solar panels on the roof of the WH. But the next couple of presidents were 'big oil' presidents and so Carter's policy wasn't pursued, Reagan immediately removed the solar panels from the roof and turned the thermostat back up.

Hagel also addressed recent criticisms by former Federal Chairman Alan Greenspan that oil had been a motivation for the invasion of Iraq, which he believed were valid.

But what you probably haven't seen -- because everyone has forgotten -- is that back in 2007, Chuck Hagel went totally crazy and told the truth about our invasion of Iraq. Here's what he said:

People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hagel-skewers-iraq-war-defends-greenspans-oil-comments
 
Last edited:
Primary Resources: Proposed Energy PolicyOther Primary Resources
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-energy/
 
No matter what the polls say the man is still in the White House.
 
The facts are Obama's numbers are actually better than Bush's. If you look at the links, you'll see that.

I have looked at the numbers and there are no numbers created by Obama that are better than Bush's. You pick and choose the area in time that you want to use. If someone adds over 7 trillion to the debt and just gets us back to the numbers when the recession began in December 2007 that is a disastrous economic result
 
Again, read the link. Pay attention to each word.

I have read the link but obviously you have no concept of where TARP was included in that projected deficit or the fact that the Bush budget was never signed by Bush or passed by Congress until Obama did it in March 2009. You sign it, you own it. Obama understood however people like you who would blame Bush out of their own ignorance of the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom