Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,392 posts, read 5,145,577 times
Reputation: 2283

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
This is going to explode some brains. I am not surprised that historians are already placing Obama among the ten best. Considering what he has accomplished against unbelievable obstruction and bias is going to give him an impressive legacy.
ROTFLMAO... Seriously, good comedy.

1. Obama hasn't accomplished anything other than obama care, and even it's flawed.

2. Obstruction? The first 2 years of his presidency, he got everything he wanted handed to him on a silver platter.

3. As for his budget that congress wouldn't pass, it went through with ZERO votes, nobody, either Democrat OR republican voted yes.

He has had no obstruction, no bias, he has accrued the largest debt of any 2 presidents having served 8 years each combined, in under 4 years. That's an accomplishment if you are looking for one...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:05 PM
 
14,295 posts, read 9,629,607 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
This is going to explode some brains. I am not surprised that historians are already placing Obama among the ten best. Considering what he has accomplished against unbelievable obstruction and bias is going to give him an impressive legacy.
Yep, unbelievable that his party controlled both houses of congers for two years, and controlled the senate during all four. Let's be real here folks, how can any president get anything done unless he has a filibuster-proof, super majorities in both houses of congress, during all four years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:25 PM
 
14,295 posts, read 9,629,607 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville1 View Post
Well now there's some timely, objective unbiased reporting! That's precisely why I don't read that rag.

And I may just vote for Obama, only because the alternative is worse!
By what possible standard might Romney be worse then what Obama has been? Obama has been terrible, from an historical perspective, we would need to go back to the Great Depression to find a worse economic situation. We have record setting bad markers throughout our economy under Obama, 44 months in a row of over 8% unemployment, over $5 trillion in new debt in just three years, and the Mid East has set its hair on fire, 48 million on food stamps, a fifty year high percentage of Americans living at the poverty level.

You would have to suspend reality, ignore the past four years, and create a fantastically bad, and outrageous imaginary future under a Romney presidency, in order to justify Obama's presidency as being better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:27 PM
 
27,625 posts, read 21,018,224 times
Reputation: 11091
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Yep, unbelievable that his party controlled both houses of congers for two years, and controlled the senate during all four. Let's be real here folks, how can any president get anything done unless he has a filibuster-proof, super majorities in both houses of congress, during all four years?
You are dead on wrong and here's why...

President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years! | The Pragmatic Pundit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:31 PM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,813,756 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and now its lower
Please tell me why you think the respect for America is now lower with President Obama in the Whitehouse?


oh it was...ford didnt take a bailout, gm went into bankruptsey and is about to...chrysler was sold to the italians
A Ford TV ad slams competitors for accepting bailout funds, even though the company’s CEO lobbied for the bill. The company — the only one of the Big Three not to receive a bailout — feared a collapse of GM and Chrysler at the time would have hurt suppliers and, in turn, Ford itself. Ford Chief Executive Officer Alan R. Mulally also asked Congress for a “credit line” of up to $9 billion in case the economy worsened.
In other words, Ford was for government bailouts before it was against them.
Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.”
Chrysler has made a remarkable turnaround. Before entering bankruptcy proceedings, the company was nearly out of cash, starved after a decade under the ownership of German automaker Daimler and private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. It needed U.S. government money to survive. But in the first three months of this year, Chrysler made a net profit of $116 million and is forecasting 2011 earnings of $200 million to $500 million.
Under the leadership of Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne, the company has cut costs and revived its sales by refurbishing most of its lineup of Jeep, Chrysler, Dodge and Ram vehicles. Sales of the Jeep Grand Cherokee were nearly three times higher in May than in the same month a year ago.
G.M. company has worked hard to recover from bankruptcy. It can’t afford to take any wrong step and needs to be more careful in investing in the Ally unit. The Asian market which looks more promising could be a safer bet. The new product line and the encouraging Chinese economy where the automaker’s market share is getting stronger look good for the company. This being said, I would say one shouldn’t get swayed as it is important to see how all this reflects in its future quarters.

now amplified
The current health system in the USA is one of the most expensive and leat efficient in the Industrialised world.
Please can you tell me how you can say Obamacare is costing more or as you say costs are "amplified", when Obamacare is NOT fully implemented until 2014....... are your fifures from your crystal ball?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:33 PM
 
6 posts, read 8,644 times
Reputation: 23
yeeeesh
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:42 PM
 
749 posts, read 835,149 times
Reputation: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
Rightwing radio is already in melt down mode. This should send them over the top
I hate to break it to you, but people with brains completely dismiss anything a liberal has to say, as a complete load of $h!*.

Only libs care what libs say...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:51 PM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
20,098 posts, read 16,015,663 times
Reputation: 28265
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
The blogger is basing his premise on a falsehood. You do not need to have 60 votes in the senate to pass a bill, you need 60 votes to make a bill fillerbuster proof.
Quote:
Most business in the Senate is subject to filibustering -- that is, actions, or even just threats, to talk a bill to death. Filibusters can be overcome by what’s known as a "cloture" vote that shuts off debate and moves a measure toward final consideration. For the Senate to agree to cloture requires 60 votes -- a high threshold that many Senate majorities are unable to muster on controversial votes (and, increasingly, even on relatively uncontroversial votes).

However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That’s because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate -- 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority -- not 60 votes -- is all that’s required to pass a budget resolution.

Indeed, passing a budget resolution by at least 60 votes has become increasingly rare in recent years, according to CRS data. Since 1994, the Senate vote has exceeded that vote threshold just three times, either in the initial vote or on a subsequent vote in which lawmakers consider an identical House-Senate version of the resolution.

More common in recent years are votes where 51 was enough to prevail. In 2009, the Senate even passed the final budget resolution by a 48-45 margin.
The Democrats controlled congress for the first two years of Obama's presidency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 03:51 PM
 
Location: London UK & Florida USA
7,923 posts, read 8,813,756 times
Reputation: 2059
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and now its lower


oh it was...ford didnt take a bailout, gm went into bankruptsey and is about to...chrysler was sold to the italians

now amplified
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyTrav View Post
I hate to break it to you, but people with brains completely dismiss anything a liberal has to say, as a complete load of $h!*.

Only libs care what libs say...
What a pity that the Reublican's absolutely..point blank... refuse to live in America 2012.
Listening to a Republican makes one realise that not ALL the nuts are in Brazil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-26-2012, 04:00 PM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,739,934 times
Reputation: 8437
Honestly, I don't see how JFK was included or why people consider him a great president at all. Even the article states the space race began under Eisenhower, who was included contrary to what a poster said.

Also, I wouldn't have included Obama either, but he has had some great accomplishments contrary to the opinions of those who hate him. Obamacare, whether you like it or not was an accomplishment, also killing bin Laden was an accomplishment and those two things right there are issues that I feel would warrant, after his second term, him being included in the list.

I personally feel that Clinton should have been on the list moreso than JFK since he was actually president for 2 terms and he did oversee a period of great economic growth and prosperity in this country. He either should have replaced JFK or Obama IMO.

Erin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top