are you happy with Obama`s progress so far?

**nailzer** · 08-12-2009, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Scottwax

I hope the Republicans stop worrying about crap like Obama`s birth certificate and start working towards the 2012 election and what they intend to do.

Like getting Palin in as president? That should solve all our problems.

**SVTContour** · 08-12-2009, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Legacy99

Hey, give the guy some time. Look what he had on his plate that was left by Bush. A war, mortgage crisis, banking meltdown. Bush has got to go down as the worst president in history.

Really? And how exactly is Bush responsible for that? Who was it that pushed for mortgages to be given to people who shouldn`t have them?

Oh and you are welcome for 0 terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11.

**imported_shine** · 08-12-2009, 12:11 PM

I`m not at all happy with his "progress", to put it nicely.

**topnotchtouch** · 08-12-2009, 01:39 PM

These political threads are more entertaining than the wife`s soaps..

This one rates :getdown :getdown :getdown on the banana scale

**GlossyTundra** · 08-12-2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by SVTContour

Oh and you are welcome for 0 terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11.

+1 :xyxthumbs

**Legacy** · 08-12-2009, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by SVTContour

Really? And how exactly is Bush responsible for that? Who was it that pushed for mortgages to be given to people who shouldn`t have them?

Oh and you are welcome for 0 terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11.

Sub prime mortgages were under both Regan and Bush. Yes, no attacks, but thousands of american lives lossed in Iraq. Who caused that war? A little hint on his intials GWB.

**Setec Astronomy** · 08-12-2009, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by SVTContour

Oh and you are welcome for 0 terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11.

Well, 9/11 was not the first time WTC was attacked/bombed by Al Queda, the first was the garage bombing in 1993. So let`s see if we can compare this...no terrorist attacks after 9/11--score one for W. No terrorist attacks after 2/26/93--score one for Clinton. Terrorist attacks before or =9/11...one black mark against W. Terrorist attacks before or =2/26/93--well, I guess that makes W. and Clinton equally good or equally bad presidents, since you established the "no attacks after the first one" criteria.

Actually I would give the nod to Clinton on that one, because his attack wasn`t as bad, and he went longer without another one while he was president (7 years, 11 months, W. only went 7 years, 4 months). So right now Obama is ahead of Clinton. If he gets thru September without Al Queda attacking, that will make him a better President than Bush, right?

**RTexasF** · 08-12-2009, 05:02 PM

Happy with the egomaniac president? Not one bit. I`m watching the country that I served and fought for go to the dogs due to Obama the socialist. It will only turn around when he is gone or more people begin to wake up.....which is happening.

**imported_mobenzowner** · 08-12-2009, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Legacy99

Sub prime mortgages were under both Regan and Bush. Yes, no attacks, but thousands of american lives lossed in Iraq. Who caused that war? A little hint on his intials GWB.

Less lives have been lost in Iraq than lost in the attacks of 9/11. GWB did prevent other attacks from happening here on U.S. soil, which I dont think Obama could have/would have done. BTW a democratic President whose initials are WJC had a chance to get Bin-Laden and didnt take it before he masterminded the 9/11 attacks. As for sub-primes under Regan and Bush that is almost funny, no actually that is funny. The subprimes began under Carter and was revived in full force under Clinton, Barney Frank, etc etc etc. Since we blame everything bad now on the previous administration of GWB,(who I agree made many mistakes) how can you blame subprime on anyone other than JC or WJC?

As for how do we like Obama`s progress? Guess I`d rather be free from government control under Bush than where we are headed with Obama`s socialism.

I dont mean to sound rude with my sentiments, I just disagree with you strongly, but am glad you at least have opinions and am sure you mean every bit as well as I do. Many dont care one way or another, those are who worry me.

**Setec Astronomy** · 08-12-2009, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by mobenzowner

Less lives have been lost in Iraq than lost in the attacks of 9/11.

That is just wrong. 4,325 killed as of last month.

Originally Posted by mobenzowner

GWB did prevent other attacks from happening here on U.S. soil

Prevent? Do you have any evidence of that? The only evidence I know of is that Al Qaeda only attacks (domestically) about once every 8 years, since they started in 1993. As far as I know there is no publically available evidence that attacks were prevented post-9/11, only that no attacks occurred. Perhaps none were attempted? Or was Bush simply as good as Clinton at preventing attacks (they both suffered one each)? Perhaps Clinton prevented just as many attacks that are hidden in the classified record, just as Bush/Cheney have suggested their "preventions" are.

I dunno, if I was President, and I had prevented attacks, I`d kinda want everybody to know about it, I`d want pictures of the body bags or the captured terrorists on every news outlet.

**imported_mobenzowner** · 08-12-2009, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

That is just wrong. 4,325 killed as of last month.

Prevent? Do you have any evidence of that? The only evidence I know of is that Al Qaeda only attacks (domestically) about once every 8 years, since they started in 1993. As far as I know there is no publically available evidence that attacks were prevented post-9/11, only that no attacks occurred. Perhaps none were attempted? Or was Bush simply as good as Clinton at preventing attacks (they both suffered one each)? Perhaps Clinton prevented just as many attacks that are hidden in the classified record, just as Bush/Cheney have suggested their "preventions" are.

I dunno, if I was President, and I had prevented attacks, I`d kinda want everybody to know about it, I`d want pictures of the body bags or the captured terrorists on every news outlet.

You are correct sir. There were 2993 deaths directly related to the attacks of 9/11. I was wrong on my intial numbers and man enough to admit it. As to prevention, the only evidence I have is that no further attacks took place, and reports are several attempted attacks were foiled. As for your statment that "Al Qaeda attacks (domestically) once about every 8 years",in my opinion is false. Al-Qaeda had several planned attacks, which they would have carried out had they been able. You are wrong about no public available evidence that attacks were foiled. There was much written about attempted attacks in Los Angeles, as well as shoe bomb polts by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and who could forget Jose Padilla and his plans to blow up apartment buildings. I have included a link from the whitehouse detailing(no pun intended ) these plots. CNN.com - White House lists 10 foiled attacks` - Feb 9, 2006

I know this data is from the Bush whitehouse and therefore higly disputable to many. I would have no problem with the statement had you said "successful attacks every 8 years", but that would have kinda made my point for me.

You could be right that Clinton could also have prevented attacks, I wont say he didnt.

Anyway, you have given me good advice before on this forum(car related, not political, jk.) and I hope we can just disagree on this one with no hard feelings.

**Setec Astronomy** · 08-12-2009, 08:01 PM

No hard feelings. We`re still in a war of ideology, and ideas are really hard to bomb. I`d feel a lot better about the whole thing if we had spent those 4,000+ lives hunting Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than our excursion into a redo of the first Gulf War, minus the WMD`s, and our attempt at nation-building in a nation that`s made up of 3 ethnic factions who hate each other and have never been governable save for the successful dictators there (today`s news that the Shia have restrained themselves from sectarian retailiation notwithstanding).

**Setec Astronomy** · 08-12-2009, 08:10 PM

If there is one thing this thread demonstrates, it`s the extreme degree of polarization that`s still present in our society. There doesn`t seem to be any middle ground anymore, you`re blue or you`re red. I`ve voted for more Republican presidential candidates than I have Democrats, but to you red-staters, I`m still a pariah. We can`t get anything done in Congress (generally speaking) because there isn`t really any considered thought, mostly partisan politics. If you`re a Democrat, that shouldn`t mean that you think every Democratic idea is golden, any more than you should think that every Republican idea is crap. I guess I`m too old, I remember when more politicians than not were statesmen, instead of used car salesmen. Time to go off on the ice flow. And with that, I`m going to try to stay out of this thread, because the vitriol just makes me sick.

**imported_mobenzowner** · 08-12-2009, 08:29 PM

Setec, I agree completely with your last two posts. Whether we agree or disagree on ideology, you speak (post) with intelligence and I respect you for it.

**nailzer** · 08-13-2009, 04:16 AM

I hear the word "Socialist" in the same sentence as President Obama quite a bit. Would someone explain what motivation the President of the United States, and former professor of constitutional law would have to try to move this country towards socialism.