Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What year of school are you in kid? You failed too many times in that post to be very old. For instance, the AG Holder, said that he and his boss, that would be Obama, didn't agree with DOMA and they would not enforce it and you asked what law?
Where did you fact check those things? Too many of your answers sounded like how a high school or young college student would be after hearing a left leaning teacher talk about the subject.
Why do you not know about the mandate concerning buying health insurance. We have not had to do it up to January 1, 2014 when Obamacare kicks in.
You say that the Stimulus Act didn't spend $1 trillion which is kind of true but it did spend over $800 billion. I bet you don't even know that all that talk about trillions in 10 years means anything, do you? When they say they are "saving" like $800 billion in 10 years they are using big numbers to impress when the savings talked about would only be $80 billion per year. Both parties are doing this but it expanded a pile after I Won came into office.
Did Obama not tell Boeing that they couldn't run that factory they had nearly completed in South Carolina? It seems that his unconstitutionally appointed NLRB was involved in that one, also.
You say that only opinionated people still wonder how he got that Peace Prize when he hadn't done anything at all peaceful. Of course, most of us know why it was but I think he liked the million dollars at the time.
I will back off now since I doubt you will read this and won't understand much of it, either. Where do you do your fact checking, anyway?
Quite the contrary actually, I can read.
Now that we cleared that up, I misread the third party comment originally that is why I asked what it means. I am very aware of the Healthcare bill and its personal mandate.
When I say that the stimulus bill didn't spend $1 trillion on shovel ready jobs I mean it didn't spend $1 trillion on shovel ready jobs (by the way 800 billion is not kind of 1 trillion). The stimulus bill only had $100 billion in infrastructure spending (if you want you can add $50 billion in misc shovel ready spending). The money is also significantly front loaded so the majority of the money has been spent or in the process of being spent already.
I actually did not hear about the Obama vs. Boeing problem and don't know enough to comment on it. Thanks for giving specifics though I will read up on it as it is interesting.
I did not say that only opinionated people wonder how he got his Peace Prize. The way he phrased the comment however put a highly opinionated spin on it. Obama won the award in 2009 and at the time he was a very peaceful leader who extended the olive branch across the world, something bush had failed to do, and as a result patched up many rough relationships. Do I personally think he deserved a peace prize? No. Were there better candidates? Maybe, I'm not sure. But to say he did nothing to even be considered for the award at the time is a lie.
Finally, I don't know the whole story but I personally find nothing wrong with not enforcing a law that is viewed as unconstitutional by the administration provided that they are actively challenging the law in court. (see).
In case you were wondering I am an independent who leans conservative.
43 months ago, Obama's presidency was just beginning. The economy was already in the toilet, and there had been very little time for any new policies to have any significant effect. I'm not convinced that it really makes any sense to assign total praise or blame for the economy to any president, given the numerous factors that are beyond any president's control, but if you really want to blame a president, you really need to consider the Republican who was president for the 8 years prior to Obama. These years would be the historical roots of the current economy. But, as much as I would like to blame G.W. Bush for the bad economy (and give credit to Obama if/when things improve), I just don't think it is realistic to dump anything as complex as the state of the national economy on any president's lap. To try to do so is just plain simple-minded.
While this is correct the president should also refrain from promising things that are improbable/impossible to deliver or promise things he has no intention of doing when the words leave his mouth.
Personally I think the economy mess started before Bush with long term policies set by prior residents of the White House. This is what happens when all these people with this "vision" set policy that really doesn't kick in until they're out of office, a practice I'd like to see stopped. I mean really, setting policies today that hit in 2022?
C'mon, nobody knows exactly what the future holds unless there's a national fortune teller on the payroll now?
Now that we cleared that up, I misread the third party comment originally that is why I asked what it means. I am very aware of the Healthcare bill and its personal mandate.
When I say that the stimulus bill didn't spend $1 trillion on shovel ready jobs I mean it didn't spend $1 trillion on shovel ready jobs (by the way 800 billion is not kind of 1 trillion). The stimulus bill only had $100 billion in infrastructure spending (if you want you can add $50 billion in misc shovel ready spending). The money is also significantly front loaded so the majority of the money has been spent or in the process of being spent already.
I actually did not hear about the Obama vs. Boeing problem and don't know enough to comment on it. Thanks for giving specifics though I will read up on it as it is interesting.
I did not say that only opinionated people wonder how he got his Peace Prize. The way he phrased the comment however put a highly opinionated spin on it. Obama won the award in 2009 and at the time he was a very peaceful leader who extended the olive branch across the world, something bush had failed to do, and as a result patched up many rough relationships. Do I personally think he deserved a peace prize? No. Were there better candidates? Maybe, I'm not sure. But to say he did nothing to even be considered for the award at the time is a lie.
Finally, I don't know the whole story but I personally find nothing wrong with not enforcing a law that is viewed as unconstitutional by the administration provided that they are actively challenging the law in court. (see).
In case you were wondering I am an independent who leans conservative.
As for the Peace prize, upon a bit of reading it turns out that he won for a couple of reasons, the major ones was that he gave a nice speech that convinced some members and that the head of the committee stated "we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts"
At the time it was held that the award was given for what "he would do" not what he "has done".
At the time it was held that the award was given for what "he would do" not what he "has done".
I don't agree. The announcement by the Nobel committee clearly discusses the effect that his election has already had on the world. And to the extent that some of the reasons were based on his visions for the future, these visions themselves, in this moment of history, were important for the impact they had already had on people around the world. In other words, even if he fails to accomplish his visions, his visions in and of themselves were, according to the committee, worthy of the prize because of the effects these visions were already having as of the time of the award. Below I've pasted the Nobel announcement. I've put some parts in bold:
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population. For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Oslo, October 9, 2009
oh yeah the one guy in the White House is the causing variable here... everything else like globalization, and advancement in technologies have nothing to do with it right?
Are you people even aware of what the president's role in the government is?
As for the Peace prize, upon a bit of reading it turns out that he won for a couple of reasons, the major ones was that he gave a nice speech that convinced some members and that the head of the committee stated "we are hoping this may contribute a little bit for what he is trying to do," noting that he hoped the award would assist Obama's foreign policy efforts"
At the time it was held that the award was given for what "he would do" not what he "has done".
A prize awarded by a bunch of rich people with an agenda means nothing. Money does not bestow credibility.
Nope, he just took what was given to him and made it worse. If he and his handlers had their way they'd inject trillions into the economy in an effort to bankrupt the country and bring about systematic change.
It's a good thing they aren't getting their way
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
When is the left going to put someone up with some common sense?
The last time they did was JFK, and look how that turned out. They won't make that mistake a second time.
Mitt Romney....are you back? 700k jobs lost per month is better than 125k jobs gained per month? Etch as sketch? 47%?
Good times.
We're talking about UNEMPLOYMENT. And yes, Obama is the record setting UE president. Maybe you didn't keep up with the last election, but Romney never got elected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
