Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Obama so far: Weak and NaiveFollow

#1 Jul 27 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Let's be honest, he's been a below average President so far. He squandered a massive amount of political capital to accomplish very little. He's shown both the inability to effectively communicate with the American people, and also the inability to win political battles. You've got do be able to do one of those things to lead this country, preferably both. He's been an empty suit, so far, and he's shown an almost overwhelming desire to please old white men and avoid conflict. That's probably a great instinct when you're trying to land a job out of Harvard Law, but it's the opposite of leadership. If he stepped down today and I was called upon to write his political epitaph headline it would be this:

Mild Mannered House Negro Assures Nation He Hasn't Stolen any of the Silverware.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 Jul 27 2011 at 7:31 PM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
Seems pretty par for the course as far as incompetence goes. Next election we should just elect a suit and save ourselves the headache.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jul 27 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Maybe this whole "first black President" was just a failed experiment. Should we wait a few cycles before going with "first female President" or just rush Hillary right in?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#4 Jul 27 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Let's be honest, our of the 43 men who have run your country, I'd be willing to bet at least half of them were rather lacklustre.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#5 Jul 27 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Let's be honest, our of the 43 men who have run your country, I'd be willing to bet at least half of them were rather lacklustre.

I don't think that's true, really. It's easy to judge leaders who I dislike as ineffective but they frequently aren't. Bush was astonishingly effective. Clinton also. Bush Sr. less so. Regan was effective, Carter, taken in terms of what he attempted to accomplish, was reasonably effective at passing legislation. Ford is the most recent President who was anywhere near this weak. Nixon was effective, Johnson was amazingly effective, Kennedy less so, but getting shot in the face tends to put a damper on what you can get done. Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, all obviously effective.

"The Black Gerald Ford" doesn't seem like something to aspire to.
#6 Jul 27 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Whether it excuses him or not, it is an atypical environment. This is quite possibly one of the worst Congresses in history of the United States. A record setting number of cloture motions filed and complete inability to work together on what should be entirely procedural matters like raising the debt limit.
#7 Jul 27 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Whether it excuses him or not, it is an atypical environment. This is quite possibly one of the worst Congresses in history of the United States. A record setting number of cloture motions filed and complete inability to work together on what should be entirely procedural matters like raising the debt limit.


There's a compelling argument this situation is the result of his weakness, not the cause.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#8 Jul 27 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I think you guys should just disband and exist as sovereign states. You had a good run.

Or better yet, just kick out places like Texas.

Edited, Jul 27th 2011 9:54pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#9 Jul 27 2011 at 7:54 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

I think you guys should just disband and exist as sovereign states. You had a good run.


Why not? Worked out well for you blokes in Ireland.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Jul 27 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Exactly! Wait a minute, that's the exact opposite of true!
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#11 Jul 27 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
******
49,740 posts
Maybe not all 50, but at least dump the ones that go out of their way to identify themselves as "The South."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#12 Jul 27 2011 at 7:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe not all 50, but at least dump the ones that go out of their way to identify themselves as "The South."

Tried it once, and all it got us was a mediocre Tom Berenger movie.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#13 Jul 27 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Why don't you declare war on "The South", then just not show up and let them secede?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#14 Jul 27 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Why don't you declare war on "The South", then just not show up and let them secede?

We could use them as a buffer between us and the Mexicans!

But then who would mow our lawns? Smiley: confused
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#15 Jul 27 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe not all 50, but at least dump the ones that go out of their way to identify themselves as "The South."


Hey! I love the South!!!!! Just not necessarily the people.... but that's also everywhere for me.
#16 Jul 27 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a compelling argument this situation is the result of his weakness, not the cause.

Care to share it?
#17 Jul 27 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Demea wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Why don't you declare war on "The South", then just not show up and let them secede?

We could use them as a buffer between us and the Mexicans!

But then who would mow our lawns? Smiley: confused

The people from Texas who learned ID as science. Y'know, the people who'd be too dumb-as-bricks to do any other work?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#18 Jul 27 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Demea wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Why don't you declare war on "The South", then just not show up and let them secede?

We could use them as a buffer between us and the Mexicans!

But then who would mow our lawns? Smiley: confused

The people from Texas who learned ID as science. Y'know, the people who'd be too dumb-as-bricks to do any other work?


Honestly not trying to derail a thread, just want a quick one liner. Do you believe that people who believe in ID are genuinely stupid. I say that in a sense of over all stupid, not "that person is stupid for supporting x,y and z." Don't need an explanation on why you do or don't, just curious.
#19 Jul 27 2011 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Yes, they're stupid.

edit: And I really mean stupid. Like, on the level of homoeopathy, stupid.

Edited, Jul 27th 2011 10:20pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#20nonwto, Posted: Jul 27 2011 at 8:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The observations you've made are so plainly obvious that I don't see what sort of productive discussion you expect to come from this thread.
#21 Jul 27 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
I don't think that's true, really. It's easy to judge leaders who I dislike as ineffective but they frequently aren't. Bush was astonishingly effective. Clinton also. Bush Sr. less so. Regan was effective, Carter, taken in terms of what he attempted to accomplish, was reasonably effective at passing legislation. Ford is the most recent President who was anywhere near this weak. Nixon was effective, Johnson was amazingly effective, Kennedy less so, but getting shot in the face tends to put a damper on what you can get done. Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, all obviously effective.

"The Black Gerald Ford" doesn't seem like something to aspire to.


I suppose you're defining effectiveness as the two criteria in the OP? So, for example, if I want to annex Botswana to improve the economy and I convince the American people it's a good idea and win the political battle, I'm effective even if it turns out adding Botswana to the mix has had a les than restorative affect on the economy? I can see the logic of such an approach because it doesn't lead you to try and profile presidents, but if you cut all that out you're not really measuring their effectiveness as a president but rather their effectiveness in one aspect, albeit a large one, of their job.

P.S. Hey Smash, how stupid a comment would it take to get you to go into one of your rants?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#22 Jul 27 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I don't think that's true, really. It's easy to judge leaders who I dislike as ineffective but they frequently aren't. Bush was astonishingly effective. Clinton also. Bush Sr. less so. Regan was effective, Carter, taken in terms of what he attempted to accomplish, was reasonably effective at passing legislation. Ford is the most recent President who was anywhere near this weak. Nixon was effective, Johnson was amazingly effective, Kennedy less so, but getting shot in the face tends to put a damper on what you can get done. Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, all obviously effective.

"The Black Gerald Ford" doesn't seem like something to aspire to.


I suppose you're defining effectiveness as the two criteria in the OP? So, for example, if I want to annex Botswana to improve the economy and I convince the American people it's a good idea and win the political battle, I'm effective even if it turns out adding Botswana to the mix has had a les than restorative affect on the economy? I can see the logic of such an approach because it doesn't lead you to try and profile presidents, but if you cut all that out you're not really measuring their effectiveness as a president but rather their effectiveness in one aspect, albeit a large one, of their job.

P.S. Hey Smash, how stupid a comment would it take to get you to go into one of your rants?

You're getting warmer.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#23 Jul 27 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

Care to share it?


I'm trying to think about how it possibly could need more exposition? President comes into office with overwhelming majorities in both houses, accomplishes almost nothing in the face of clearly abjectly adversarial opposition, his party is destroyed in the mid term elections and how his weakness might contribute to the tone of that incoming opposition majority is somehow confusing?

Which argument do you want?

The cognitive one? He conditioned the GOP that political success only required their entrenched opposition.

The PR one? He devalued his own brand by allowing health care to consume a legislative agenda where he could easily have passed multiple politically useful programs.

The economic one? He caved on a "compromise" stimulus number for no particular reason. The political will was there for a larger program, the economic case was clear, that half of an effective stimulus in no way approached 50% in useful effect.

The administrative one? His staff is regularly destroyed by both legislative operations on the hill. I can make specific cases for this if it's really necessary, but it's really not a debatable point.

The expectations one? He campaigned, successfully, on a lot of obviously vapid talking points, transparency, change, whatever. Excusable if you present the illusion that any of these have in any way continued to matter after the inauguration. This didn't take place. If you lie to get elected, and clearly that's required, you need to continue to lie if you win. Transitioning from "Yes we can" to "We all have to sacrifice" doesn't work.

How far do you want to take this? Is the outcome really substantively different than if McCain had won the election? Maybe. The SCOTUS justices matter, but the rest? Hard to say.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#24 Jul 27 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
I don't think that's true, really. It's easy to judge leaders who I dislike as ineffective but they frequently aren't. Bush was astonishingly effective. Clinton also. Bush Sr. less so. Regan was effective, Carter, taken in terms of what he attempted to accomplish, was reasonably effective at passing legislation. Ford is the most recent President who was anywhere near this weak. Nixon was effective, Johnson was amazingly effective, Kennedy less so, but getting shot in the face tends to put a damper on what you can get done. Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, all obviously effective.

"The Black Gerald Ford" doesn't seem like something to aspire to.


I suppose you're defining effectiveness as the two criteria in the OP? So, for example, if I want to annex Botswana to improve the economy and I convince the American people it's a good idea and win the political battle, I'm effective even if it turns out adding Botswana to the mix has had a les than restorative affect on the economy? I can see the logic of such an approach because it doesn't lead you to try and profile presidents, but if you cut all that out you're not really measuring their effectiveness as a president but rather their effectiveness in one aspect, albeit a large one, of their job.


He means effective as in "being able to get things done even if conditions aren't perfect". Basically, Obama hasn't been able to get anything done unless he started with an overwhelming majority in both houses of congress already on board. The sign of an effective president is that he can find ways to get congress to pass legislation even when he doesn't have a super majority in the senate and a huge majority in the house. Reagan was arguably one of the best at this. Johnson was also very good at this, as was Nixon. Bush 42 was very good at it. Ditto with Clinton. Both Clinton and Reagan got a lot of stuff done even though the other party controlled congress during most/all of their terms.

I'm assuming that's what he means at least. It's the logical inference from his list. It's not about whether you agree with what they did, but whether they were able to get actual bi-partisan legislation passed. So far, Obama has shown a shocking inability to negotiate with the GOP. Even if you blame the GOP for being the "party of NO", it's still a failure on his part. Evey opposition party can be a party of no. It's kinda up to the president and the agenda he sets to determine whether he works with the opposition party, or works over them. Obama started with such large majorities in congress that he chose a path of essentially ignoring Republicans and passing his agenda right over their strongest objections. Strangely, when he lost that congressional power, he hasn't changed his approach. That's the test of a presidents capabilities, and he's failing pretty badly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jul 27 2011 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Yes, they're stupid.

edit: And I really mean stupid. Like, on the level of homoeopathy, stupid.

Edited, Jul 27th 2011 10:20pm by Nilatai


Cool thanks.. Just curious..

Interesting....
#26 Jul 27 2011 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Don't forget the secret conspiracy nut one:
He was actually born on the secret Martain U.S. embassy, so they can't show his real birth certificate for fear of revealing the existance of our semi hostile green neighbors. No, not the canadians.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (59)