Right. And:
- Death panels
13…
Oh nevermind. I think are more reasons than numbers or English letters. Which one is the euphemism, our list, or Cisco’s reason?
Or, as you’re more likely to hear, “He’s not a really one of us hardworking Americans.”
We’re talking about Obama, not Dio.
Speaking as a non-republican conservative who doesn’t hate Obama, but also doesn’t think he’s all that great a President…
-
He’s not a leader really. He allowed Congress too much control over ‘his’ issues. Both the stimulus and health care barely have Obama’s fingerprints on it, they were almost entirely written an negotiated by Congress instead.
-
Too much blame the previous guy. Yeah, I understand why he does it. Depending on the issue, sometimes it’s even right. But still, Democrats have controlled Congress for 4 years. He’s been in the White House for a year and a half. At some point Obama should be pushing what he has done today rather than how bad the other guys were years ago.
-
It’s the economy, stupid. The stimulus had a lot of pork barrel spending, buying off democrat support groups, etc. I won’t say the stimulus did nothing, I think it did help in the long run, but it’s pretty clear that a fair amount of the cash was blown on things that didn’t do dick all. For hundreds of billions of spending, we should have gotten a far greater economic payoff than we did. Which is the fault of Congress rather than Obama, but go re-read point #1.
The bailouts came off as bailing out of the unions more than aiding car companies. Add in that true financial reform has been pretty much gutted (which I blame both parties for, but dems have the power so they get more blame).
Plus the fact that the majority of his Presidency and political capital so far was spent pushing for health care, not the economy. The economy is absolute shit, and it seems like Obama STILL hasn’t realized that, or at least he hasn’t really attempted to do anything about it.
-
For such a great communicator, he sure is tone deaf at times. The beer summit, the stepping in middle of the mosque issue, ‘apologizing’ for America, the initial response to the oil spill, etc. I not saying I disagree with him on all this stuff, a couple of these I actually agree with, but still, he’s had more than his fair share of seeming to be just plain out of touch.
-
And, of course, as I speak he’s sitting in on a death panel to decide if my grandma should live or die. I fear he’ll decide she should live and then I’ll be stuck with that old bat.
Is it me, or does this sound like a pick-up line at a philosophy-major party?
You’d probably have to Hegel over the price.
As all laws are. I understand your point but let’s not forget that the president doesn’t write laws. He can propose tenets of a bill but he does not make the laws. He signs the bills or doesn’t.
[Clinton]
I was a Bill who signed bills. Hehe.
[/Clinton]
Perfect example of purposeful manipulation of popular opinion. If Obama had drafted the bill in the White House, he’d be blamed for not letting Congress legislate. Now, there’s a small minority of voters who actually care who drafts a bill; most of us accept that if Congress passes it, it passes. But it is to the advantage of a party in a two-party system to encourage the idea that however the “guy from the other party” does it is somehow wrong–whatever way that is.
Much of the rest of godix’s post is, “I agree with him but he offended someone else.” So, godix, would you vote for someone who does the right thing (in your eyes) though it offends some of the people in the party of his opposition? Or would you vote against someone who does the right thing in your eyes, because the right thing in your eyes offends some of the people in the party of his opposition? Because that’s going to happen anyway, all the time.
I’ve heard this one a few times, and it confuses me. Bill Clinton got hammered for writing health care legislation WITHOUT involvement from Congress. Obama’s people decided to go the other way because of that.
This leads me to suspect that conservatives who use this argument are being disingenuous. They just don’t want changes to health care, and complaining about how Obama went about it is after the fact whining.
Disingenious politicians! Shirley you jest. Shocked, shocked am I.
We don’t need to exclude the middle on this one: Obama’s people were clearly trying not to repeat Clinton’s errors, which was a good idea, but it’s possible they went too far in the other direction. I think that’s a fair summary of what really happened. EDIT: Okay, the politicians who make this complaint could be disingenuous in that they would have opposed it regardless. But not everybody who says this is a poiltician.
He’s not the kind of guy they would drink a beer with. Because that’s the most important thing in a president.
I get this. What I don’t get is why there isn’t a similar degree of anger towards the bankers/mortgage brokers/real estate agents who were running the con and taking their large fees off the front end. They’re the ones who made the large amounts of money on the deals. Why shouldn’t they have to disgorge their ill-gotten gains? How come they not only get off scott free, they get to make a bundle besides? Why are the Tea Partiers etc angry about that?
I agreed with the Jon Stewart philosophy. Don’t bail out the people holding the mortgage notes and loans, instead bail out the debtors, but require them to use the money to pay off their creditors. What we did instead IRL was bail out the banks, but leave the debtors out there twisting in the wind. The program that was supposed to help out those whose homes are in foreclosure has so many problems with it that the number of people who’ve been able to rescue their homes from foreclosure is relatively small. IMHO. YMMV. Thus endenth the hijack.
This isn’t as outlandish (or as racist) as it sounds.
Many black leaders- Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama’s pastor- present a very different understanding of American history than Glen Beck’s ideal ( i.e. a blind, unlimited love for the Founding Fathers.)
This is natural, and legitimate…after all, the Black experience in America is sad, and doesn’t make a pretty story. But, a half century after eliminating segregation, there is still a huge gap between the ideals that Beck and the OP’s “hardworking Americans” believe in, and the ideals that black leaders say in public. (what part of “God Damn America” don’t you understand?)
Don’t blame it on simple racism. There are deeper issues. It’s not just the white demographics that are in decline --it’s also America’s position as a world leader.
Obama seems content to recognize that the American century is over, and the US is about to go the way of the British Empire. England’s still a pretty important country—but it is completely satisfied in its role as a minor player on the world scene. Within 30 years, America will be no more powerful than Europe is today, and there is probably nothing that can be done about it. But the Republicans don’t want to see it, and believe (wrongly) that they can preserve America as a symbol of liberty, economic powerhouse, leader of the free world, proud bastion of resistance to the threat of communism/islamism etc,etc…
My post had nothing to do with racism.
I wonder if any Republicans are going to weigh in on this…
On *this *board? Not bloody likely.
You guys have the largest deficit in the history of mankind. You owe enough money to buy two or three small countries, your children’s future is mortgaged and your economy doesn’t seem to be any better for it.
Having way too much fun reading these responses…