I pray for bush all the time, and usually my wife obliges, but sometimes…
Oh…that’s not what you mean. :smack: Never mind…
-XT
I haven’t seen any evidence of anyone who actually worshiped President Obama as a divine being. I see people believing that he might be a divinely inspired great teacher or philosopher or spiritual leader. I see people claiming that they somehow “know” that Obama has a Messiah complex. I think people who claim to read other people’s minds are not to be taken very seriously.
The “easy” link that Mr. Moto provided as an example of worship of Obama sounded like a giddy crush and nothing more. The person who wrote the post described the feelings as a crush, not as the worship of a god.
If I have missed a link that actually shows organized or wide spread worship of Obama and that worship still continues, please direct me to the post I missed.
I see even the people that I generally agree with here saying that a lot of people got “out of bounds.” If their actions got weird, then there may be something to that. But I’m not sure that any of us are in a position to judge someone else’s feelings about Obama or Reagan as being a little over the top. Facts and actions can be right or wrong. Feelings just are.
Look at what you are saying. It can be natural and ordinary to make an invalid attack? What is wrong with this picture, Jas? I say it is not natural to make dishonest attacks! There is too much of that and it is promoted more and more as being an okay tactic. I don’t care which party does it! There is nothing wrong with large, adoring crowds when you are running for President!!!
Were you able to split your vote and not vote for the entire Democratic ticket?
Why would any honest person want to twist it? It’s obviously talking about slowing global warming. Do Republicans just look for ways to twist and deceive? Why? Can’t they score any points without doing that?
Major difference. Reagan was a successful president in nearly every since of the word.
Obama has pretty much failed at everything he’s done.
But you guys go ape-shit when there is the slightest criticism of the guy.
Reagan successfully doubled the federal debt in his terms, sent the deficit through the roof, had more cabinet officials indicted than any POTUS, proved in Lebsnon that large suicide bombs work, sold arms illegally, paid ransom to hostage-takers, and violated the Constitution. He was nearly successful starting a thermonuclear war.
But since he did it all with a smile and a well-modulated voice, I guess all is forgiven. Sure, the economy picked up - he borrowed a most of a trilloon dollars and threw a party. All we had left afterwards was a hsngover of debt.
We in the reality-based community do not have a problem criticizing Obama, or hearing criticism we don’t agree with. Yes, the deficit is big - but it was also big under GWB, GHWB, and Reagan but we didn’t get anything that lasted out of those deficits. Also, where were the complaints from the right then? Are deficits only OK under Republican presidents?
I for one object to people who make fantastic (as in based in fantasy) criticisms against Obama such: Kenyan, crypto-Muslim, “terrorist fist bump”
… and we’ll make merciless fun of the Tea Partiers and Birthers as the idiots they are. While we’re going “neener-neener” they are crashing the economy again, which shows you how effective the whole thing is.
Such black and white thinking, and you don’t even have the colors right.
Nobody is going to be naming an aircraft carrier after Obama, that’s for certain
A garbage scow, maybe.
How successful was Reagan? Even “The One” needs to try to praise and emulate him.
I garuntee you, after Obama is voted out after his one term, Democrats are going to stick him in a closet like the crazy old Uncle they never want to hear from.
Kind of like they do with Jimmy Carter now, come to think of it.
Actually, I thought Japanese Kamikazes proved that suicide bombing works. You act like the terrorists just invented the idea. The difference was that we FLATTENED Japan for that kind of bullshit. We have yet to flatten the offending parts of the middle east, and that’s the problem. They’re being allowed to get away with it, and that started with your boy, Jimmy Carter, letting Iran get away with taking hostages.
Again, he had Democratic Congresses that really had more say in spending than he did. But the overall problem with debt is that borrowing is easier than taxing or cutting spending.
The difference now is, we can’t afford to borrow any more. IN the case of Reagan, we had the potential to grow our way out of the debt. Now we don’t. There simply isn’t anything more to tax and we have little left to borrow against. We have to do what every American family has had to do- cut spending.
You all screamed like scalded cats when I suggested that he can’t get re-elected with a 9.2% unemployment rate. I’ve never made comments like the ones you describe, and frankly, I’ve been attacked mercilessly… so I don’t buy it.
Several posters on this very board have said thatvif unemployment is high enough a doorstop could win the 2012 election over Obama. I agree. 9.2% is close to that line if not over it. If any one screamed at all, it was not about that point. I would gently suggest any screaming was about other points of your argument or presentation.
To be fair, when you have your ears covered and are incessantly chanting “nahnahnahnahnah” it’s hard to tell the meows from the caterwauls.
Funny how nothing bad was ever Ronnie’s fault. He said he’d cut the deficit, but never submitted a balanced budget or worked with Congress to produce one. I don’t recall Ronnie vetoing a budget. Even the ones that contained none of the cuts he campaigned on. Even the ones that contained -GASP - tax increases. The Department of Education still exists, as does the Departnent of Energy. Instead of doing the hard work that was his job, instead of reducing the eeee-vul deficit that he campaigned against, Ronnie compromised with Congress: he got his tax cuts and defense spending frenzy, they got minimal social program cuts and some increases for other programs, and the deficit skyrocketed - total US government debt doubled in the 8 Reagan years. GHWB continued those policies, and he doubled the total USG debt in another 4 years. Where were the deficit hawks then? Nowhere - the hypocrites.
It took Bill Cinton’s combination of tax increases, spending cuts, and a huge economic boom/bubble to get the annual deficits turned into surplusses. He did the hard work. He showed how to grow out of a deficit that supposedly could not be grown out of. Then GWB came along and wiped out all that progress in months.
I can think of one exception on the R team. Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Az) voted against an an Army helicopter program. A journalist asked why, since it was being built in his state. Goldwater replied “I don’t care if they’re building it in my living room - it costs too damn much!”
There wasn’t much talk like that then, and there’s none these days. Democrats are ready to aband Obama for even suggesting that Social Security and Medicare benefits might be reduced (more accuarately have smaller projected growth) as part of an overall debt reduction package.
So much for being “The One” who is supported no matter what.
I always enjoyed the way he’d annually submit a budget that was even further out of balance than his previous one, and in the same breath ask for a balanced budget amendment. He was like a serial killer who sent a note to the police saying “Stop me before I kill again!”.
Of course, he’d be way too liberal for today’s GOP.
[quote=“Typo_Knig, post:111, topic:589566”]
Wow, if you are this delusional, I’m not even sure why you bother to post.
First, Clinton’s tax increases hurt the economy. The economy was in growth mode for most of 1992, but we dipped into negative growth in late 1994 and everyone concluded we were going into another recession. This is why they voted the bums out in the midterms.
It was only THEN that we finally got serious about spending cuts. They also cut capital gains taxes, which stimulated the economy. (Everyone forgets about that. )
Yeah, Bush had to cut taxes to stimulate an economy that had run out of gas (thanks to Clinton and Janet Reno suing MicroSoftand busting the tech bubble) and of course, we had a war because Slick Willy was too busy getting blow jobs rather than take care of that Bin Laden thing…
Clinton’s lasting economy killer, though, were all those free trade deals he signed.
YOu know, you might be on to something there. What we are doing is cutting through the bullshit.
Kerry’s a good example. Tried to repaint himself as this big bad war hero… Oh, wait, there he is throwing his medals at Congress. Well, someone’s medals, anyway. He displayed his in his office later. And there’s another picture of him with commie traitor Jane Fonda. And there’s his 20 year record of trying to cut off the military at the knees at every oppurtunity. Oh, gee, the whole “War Hero” thing doesn’t look so good now, does it?
Obama, same deal, except the bullshit was a lot thicker to cut through.
Seriously, he was the least experienced person to hold the presidency, ever. Four years in the Senate. That’s it. When he bothered to show up. But, hmmm…mmmmm, he makes us feel good, doesn’t he. We can atone for all that guilt.
So when he fails to make the seas recede and the earth heal (like he promised he would) that 7 out of 10 that were willing to give the guy a chance (and I’ll admit, I was, early on) now realize he’s full of shit and it’s down to 4 in 10.
But if you point out he’s made the economy a lot worse, you’re racist.
If you point out he hasn’t kept many of his promises, you’re racist.
When you point out he’s been kind of ineffective, you’re racist.
When we vote him out in a landslide in 2012, we’ll all be racists.
Yeah, there’s no way a genuine war hero would have any medals!
I’ll relegate the “delusional” comment to the rubber/glue convention.
Were you an adult in 1992? The economy was in the crapper the whole year. GHWB’s proposed solution was for everyone to buy socks as Christmas presents. Wall Street did not begin stabilizing until after Clinton’s first budget was passed in the winter of 1993. The budget with the tax increases. The budget that started closing the annual deficit. The budget that the R team said would cause disaster. But things got better after it passed.
Had you been around in '94 you might remember Clinton’s failed attempt to reform the health insurance system. This caused much animus, and gave the Rs a ton of propaganda which they used to full force in the '94 mid-terms. Clinton was seen as a loser - irrelevant. That weakened him politically more than the state of the economy in '94, which was much better than in '92 as I recall.
Clinton did bring some fiscal discipline to the budget, and did work to get some new revenues in the stream. But he was hugely, tremendously, ginormously lucky. The Internet came along in a big way. This made it technically feasible for the government to do more with less. Long lines of people filling out forms? Put the forms on a web site and people can fill 'em out 24x7 at home. Suddenly you don’t need as many physical offices, and cuts are possible at the same level of service provided. There was the associated tech bubble which ran Wall Street up to insane levels.
The other thing that helped the economy, and Wall Street, was all that 401k money that came in as companies were hiring, and not creating traditional pension plans.
Clinton was also lucky that the bubble did not burst during his term - though it leaked a fair bit at times. The tech bubble was not sustainable, but nobody knew at the time quite when it would pop.
Your claim that the capital gains cut helped the economy does not hold water. If the tax cuts for the extremely wealthy have created jobs, please tell me where they are. I have a friend who’s looking.
Dubya cut taxes for everything - good economy, bad economy, too much cream in his coffee. He cut taxes, cut them again, cut them some more, then went on a spending spree, including two massive wars. Then he was shocked - SHOCKED! - that the budget deficit was going up. Luckily for the republic, the fine deficit hawks and the astroturf political groups funded by the Koch brothers moved in to set things on a better path during Dubya’s term, while the deficits were smaller and more easily addressed.
Oh wait, they totally didn’t!
The free trade deals - the ones the Republicans supported until they were against them - I’m not happy with them, but one argument I heard was that off-shoring was happening anyway, might as well collect some benefits from it. I’m not convinced, but there it is.
Your suggestion that the anti-trust suit against Microsoft in any way contributed to the tech bubble bursting is not supported by any evidence at all. But that takes us even further from the OP, which I recall was about Google’s new “+1” feature.
Re: Osama bin Laden - who was the one who had him caught and killed? Who is the one guy who had the guts to send a team to what turned out to be the right place at the right time, with orders to kill, even with very limited intel as to whether UBL was there (as opposed to some random drug smuggler)? Who was that one guy again?
Did you just imply that we nuked Japan because they used kamikaze pilots?
Yeah, we should have flattened Tehran the way Reagan flattened Beirut, er, Grenada.
Oh, that I think that was a factor…
“President Truman, the Japanese are flying planes into our ships, and sending children into suicide charges… Do we do a painful, drawn out amphibious invasion or just bomb them with this awesome new weapon we developed?”
Or to put it this way, do you think we’d have ever used the A-bomb on Germany?
[whiny liberal mode] “Yes. We nuked Japan because they weren’t white, and we’re a bunch of evil racists!!!” [/whiny liberal mode]
Seriously, I heard liberals say that shit in College.
.
Yup, we should have.
Oh, flattening Beruit would have been redundant, but I was all for it.
Typo King-
So Obama deserved credit for the hard work the Navy Seals did.
Clinton deserves credit for what Bill Gates and the digital revolution Did.
Democrats- taking credit for other people’s hard work since 1824.
Obama gave the orders to that SEAL team. Obama did so knowing full well they the mission might fail, and he would be blamed for that failure. He did it anyway. It worked. You would have blamed him for the failure. Be fair and credit him with the success.