No, to fail harder he'd have to outdo Carter. And he's proceeding along that path quite nicely.Dilbert_X wrote:
No blame assigned, but to fail harder he'd have to outdo Bush somehow.
Unless he sold the Navy to China for a case of beer I don't see how he could achieve that.
You're focused on two events. Yes, they are rather big--and only one should be considered to be held against him, tbh--but the broader issues that have longer-term impact across the globe (economically) are far more critical. And that is where Obama is failing much harder...similar to Carter.Dilbert_X wrote:
I dunno, how many wars did Carter start?
TBH Obama is not doing all that well.
Reagan. Bit of a different war scenario, but yeah.Dilbert_X wrote:
Has any incoming President had that much to deal with before? Two wars, near economic collapse and ongoing severe terrorist threat?
Obama hasn't failed yet, and he is trying to fix the financial fiasco handed to him by Bush, maybe he's not doing it well but we'll see.
Better wait a bit more than a year though before we start getting excited and calling it.
I'd say antagonising the entire muslim world, attacking a country without a WMD program or links to terrorism and ignoring a country which does have extensive WMD programs and definite extensive links to terrorism could well be a big picture thing.
Clinton did pretty well economically though didn't he?
The antagonism bit.FEOS wrote:
As for the terrorism/WMD thing, you would have everyone ignore it anyway, so what the fuck is your point?
Which war was that then?Reagan. Bit of a different war scenario, but yeah.
And I agree that one war (Iraq) can certainly be held against him. Yet you choose to hold two against him for some reason.Dilbert_X wrote:
The antagonism bit.FEOS wrote:
As for the terrorism/WMD thing, you would have everyone ignore it anyway, so what the fuck is your point?
That would be the Cold War. You know, trying to deal with the Soviets while preventing nuclear annihilation and all. Just a wee problem while also dealing with a melted-down economy.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which war was that then?Reagan. Bit of a different war scenario, but yeah.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-02-10 04:36:21)
Funny I that, I pictured her between my legs fiving me head while waving the star spangled banner. Each to thir own I guess.=NHB=Shadow wrote:
shes a woman what did you expect
i could see her in the kitchen and thats about it
I agree with what you said but the health care reform isn't necessary for the american people. the american people are more concerned with the stability with their job and company and inflation. People hear that they HAVE to, FORCED to pay for a Federal Universal Health Care and this drives them mad. With gas prices high along with city and schools raising the taxes increase to 1%. People have less in their wallets.Dilbert_X wrote:
Has any incoming President had that much to deal with before? Two wars, near economic collapse and ongoing severe terrorist threat?
Obama hasn't failed yet, and he is trying to fix the financial fiasco handed to him by Bush, maybe he's not doing it well but we'll see.
Better wait a bit more than a year though before we start getting excited and calling it.
I'd say antagonising the entire muslim world, attacking a country without a WMD program or links to terrorism and ignoring a country which does have extensive WMD programs and definite extensive links to terrorism could well be a big picture thing.
Clinton did pretty well economically though didn't he?
Last edited by loubot (2010-02-10 08:50:44)
You do realize that the Democrats were in power 2 years before Obama became president? You do realize that Democratic leaders pushed and pushed for everyone to have a house and severely reduced the rules for home ownership? You do realize that Democrats stood side by side and even pushed for war against Iraq just as much as any Republican or Bush(See Al Gore Speech)? You do realize that Obama and his group have spent more money in one year than all presidents in the past COMBINED? You do realize that Bush inherited quite a few conflicts around the world and in fact, only shortly after his election did 9-11 happen?Dilbert_X wrote:
Has any incoming President had that much to deal with before? Two wars, near economic collapse and ongoing severe terrorist threat?
Obama hasn't failed yet, and he is trying to fix the financial fiasco handed to him by Bush, maybe he's not doing it well but we'll see.
Better wait a bit more than a year though before we start getting excited and calling it.
I'd say antagonising the entire muslim world, attacking a country without a WMD program or links to terrorism and ignoring a country which does have extensive WMD programs and definite extensive links to terrorism could well be a big picture thing.
Clinton did pretty well economically though didn't he?
Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2010-02-10 22:37:19)
The Dems have had 3 years of rule and I can say that in response to your posts here because you are blaming Bush for the problems we have now and for the wars going on, which is stupid and forgetful of the past. What I am saying is that our government as a whole is to blame...not Bush alone, but I do blame more of the problems on the Dems right now because they have had a majority and now run congress and the presidency all on their own and have done nothing except put us more into a hole. When I cant afford something, I tighten my belt and hold on...these guys dont know when to stop and work on the real issues. Forget the utopian crap right now, work on the main problems. Debt and jobs. Screw health care, cap and trade...save that for later when we have something of a foundation first.Dilbert_X wrote:
I think now is not the time to be doing something like healthcare reform, thats Obama's big mistake.
You can't really say the US has had 3 years of democratic rule, in any case the previous 6 years of Republicans would be a big factor.
Unless you want to say the Republicans were really in office for 2 years before Bush and therefore 9/11 wasn't Clinton's responsibility after all .
Basically its Americas shitty electoral system which gives you a two party state and no bi-partisan activity to speak of, and a system which delivered up Sarah Palin as VP candidate in the first place......
And just how would it have been done differently, pray tell? There would still have been troops there, regardless, so your argument is moot.Dilbert_X wrote:
Two because Afghanistan could have been done very differently, avoiding the whole quagmire thing.
Doesn't matter. It was there and it had to be dealt with. And Bush didn't start one of the two, it got started well before Bush took office...no one bothered to notice until 2001.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty sure Carter didn't single-handedly start the cold war and dump it in Reagan's lap.
Maybe. Does it matter? What's the big deal about writing stuff on her hand ffs?Dilbert_X wrote:
PS Did Reagan write stuff on his hand?
Not that somone is a redneck moron, thats already threatening to start another war in the middle east.Feos wrote:
Sure, she's not the sharpest fry in the Happy Meal, but wouldn't you rather have someone who can speak extemporaneously off of a (literal) handful of notes than one who has to have a teleprompter to speak coherently on a topic?
hmmm...considering she makes good money and runs a state...and you complain about her on a tiny little irrelevant internet forum....okBurwhale wrote:
Not that somone is a redneck moron
Where/when did she threaten to start another war in the middle east?Burwhale wrote:
Not that somone is a redneck moron, thats already threatening to start another war in the middle east.Feos wrote:
Sure, she's not the sharpest fry in the Happy Meal, but wouldn't you rather have someone who can speak extemporaneously off of a (literal) handful of notes than one who has to have a teleprompter to speak coherently on a topic?
Incorrect, there was no need to send troops to Afghanistan.FEOS wrote:
And just how would it have been done differently, pray tell? There would still have been troops there, regardless, so your argument is moot.
Actually Clinton noticed, but you're right, Bush didn't notice until 2001.Doesn't matter. It was there and it had to be dealt with. And Bush didn't start one of the two, it got started well before Bush took office...no one bothered to notice until 2001.
Apparently the McCain team were in despair because she couldn't speak on any subject since she was basically ignorant of anything outside her home town.Sure, she's not the sharpest fry in the Happy Meal, but wouldn't you rather have someone who can speak extemporaneously off of a (literal) handful of notes than one who has to have a teleprompter to speak coherently on a topic?
and failed to do anything about it. yayDilbert_X wrote:
Actually Clinton noticed
Oh, I would LOVE to hear your in depth, detailed, fact-based analysis, Dilbert. Based on your years of experience that would run counter to those who determined troops DID need to be sent to Afghanistan.Dilbert_X wrote:
Incorrect, there was no need to send troops to Afghanistan.FEOS wrote:
And just how would it have been done differently, pray tell? There would still have been troops there, regardless, so your argument is moot.
When exactly did he notice? Was it in 93 after the WTC bombing? Or was it in 98 after the embassies were bombed? Or maybe after the Cole in 2000? Which one of those events caused him to notice enough to do something meaningful enough to prevent a follow-on?Dilbert_X wrote:
Actually Clinton noticed, but you're right, Bush didn't notice until 2001.Doesn't matter. It was there and it had to be dealt with. And Bush didn't start one of the two, it got started well before Bush took office...no one bothered to notice until 2001.
Exactly why she shouldn't have been picked. But she wasn't a US Senator, was she? Nor was she POTUS.Dilbert_X wrote:
Apparently the McCain team were in despair because she couldn't speak on any subject since she was basically ignorant of anything outside her home town.Sure, she's not the sharpest fry in the Happy Meal, but wouldn't you rather have someone who can speak extemporaneously off of a (literal) handful of notes than one who has to have a teleprompter to speak coherently on a topic?
Apart from the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan, bombing Sudan, and briefing the Bush team, to name few.11 Bravo wrote:
and failed to do anything about it. yayDilbert_X wrote:
Actually Clinton noticed
and that did what? did it stop the attack?Dilbert_X wrote:
Apart from the cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan
