Obama's New Campaign ad

[DC Tom]

Name calling the President of the US? You're a class act and a winner. The guy has accomplished more than you can ever dream of. Even if I wasn't a fan of the POTUS, I'd respect whoever is in office and treat them the respect that comes with the office.

 

But keep up your bitching on a Bills' message board. You are making a huge change in this country. Jackass.

 

But Clinton is a jackass.

[OCinBuffalo]

Name calling the President of the US? You're a class act and a winner. The guy has accomplished more than you can ever dream of. Even if I wasn't a fan of the POTUS, I'd respect whoever is in office and treat them the respect that comes with the office.

 

But keep up your bitching on a Bills' message board. You are making a huge change in this country. Jackass.

Accomplished? Ask yourself, and be honest with yourself:

Was Obama prepared for the path? Or, was the path prepared for Obama?

 

Results are what matters. The results Obama has obtained indicate the latter is true.

 

I understand that Obama is desperate. The recent polls regarding independents, and swing states, indicate that he should be. Therefore, I understand grasping onto the OBL thing and riding it as far as he can. It's sound political tactics. In fact, this is one of the very few things Obama's campaign/WH staff has done right....in a very long time.

 

However, there's a huge risk involved. This could blow up in their face just as everything else has.The Republican counter "Obama is stealing honor from the SEALS" has already started. You may not be effected by the term "stealing honor", but a lot of people are. Not saying the Republican's approach will work on independents. Am saying that there's a 50/50 chance that it becomes another "dog" story, and that would effect independents significantly.

 

If I had to bet: I would bet against Obama's team handling this properly. If anyone are jackasses, it's them. They've made a huge change in this country: they've shown how not to create an economic team, and how not to run a WH.

[Adam]

Accomplished? Ask yourself, and be honest with yourself:

Was Obama prepared for the path? Or, was the path prepared for Obama?

 

Results are what matters. The results Obama has obtained indicate the latter is true.

 

I understand that Obama is desperate. The recent polls regarding independents, and swing states, indicate that he should be. Therefore, I understand grasping onto the OBL thing and riding it as far as he can. It's sound political tactics. In fact, this is one of the very few things Obama's campaign/WH staff has done right....in a very long time.

 

However, there's a huge risk involved. This could blow up in their face just as everything else has.The Republican counter "Obama is stealing honor from the SEALS" has already started. You may not be effected by the term "stealing honor", but a lot of people are. Not saying the Republican's approach will work on independents. Am saying that there's a 50/50 chance that it becomes another "dog" story, and that would effect independents significantly.

 

If I had to bet: I would bet against Obama's team handling this properly. If anyone are jackasses, it's them. They've made a huge change in this country: they've shown how not to create an economic team, and how not to run a WH.

President Obama's administration has done what it can, with what it inherited. Is that a shot at President Bush? Absolutely not. Both administrations dealt with the after effects of 9/11 to the best of their ability. The problem is, that neither had the ability to time travel, as time is the only thing that will repair our frayed economy. People can whine all they want, about how they want it fixed now- sorry Charlie, but that ain't happening.

 

The big thing about the upcoming election, is an opportunity to be in office when the economy comes around (If it does in the next four years), and get the praise of all the lemmings that will credit either Romney or Obama for making it happen.

[OCinBuffalo]

President Obama's administration has done what it can, with what it inherited. Is that a shot at President Bush? Absolutely not. Both administrations dealt with the after effects of 9/11 to the best of their ability. The problem is, that neither had the ability to time travel, as time is the only thing that will repair our frayed economy. People can whine all they want, about how they want it fixed now- sorry Charlie, but that ain't happening.

 

The big thing about the upcoming election, is an opportunity to be in office when the economy comes around (If it does in the next four years), and get the praise of all the lemmings that will credit either Romney or Obama for making it happen.

Perhaps. Certainly the economy is on Obama though. Romney may get undue credit if it turns around....but Obama is definitely responsible for a significant part of the problem with the Stimulus and Obamacare.

 

I have found the characteristic of a top manager that is most likely to yield insight is: to whom they delegate their power and why.

 

One or two economic advisers being replaced is one thing. Certainly it's a fair expectation that most people that start with an administration won't be there when it ends, etc. However, when the entire economic teams leaves in the space of 6 months....when you've had 4 different chiefs of staff....when you keep firing generals....when you appoint Van Jones to anything, for any reason...when Eric Holder is your attorney general, and you refuse to fire him....

 

the picture becomes clear. Again, whom did he hire, and why? How did they do? How many people had to get fired, who should have been fired a long time ago(Holder), and how many people wanted out? With this much turnover, there has to be a why, besides coincidence, that resides with the top manager. Which is it? Does Obama not know how to hire people, hires the wrong people, or not know how to manage people? This turnover can't be blamed on low wages, or competition.

 

Another indicator: How many Democratic Senators and Congressman have retired since Obama took office?

[Adam]

Perhaps. Certainly the economy is on Obama though. Romney may get undue credit if it turns around....but Obama is definitely responsible for a significant part of the problem with the Stimulus and Obamacare.

 

I have found the characteristic of a top manager that is most likely to yield insight is: to whom they delegate their power and why.

 

One or two economic advisers being replaced is one thing. Certainly it's a fair expectation that most people that start with an administration won't be there when it ends, etc. However, when the entire economic teams leaves in the space of 6 months....when you've had 4 different chiefs of staff....when you keep firing generals....when you appoint Van Jones to anything, for any reason...when Eric Holder is your attorney general, and you refuse to fire him....

 

the picture becomes clear. Again, whom did he hire, and why? How did they do? How many people had to get fired, who should have been fired a long time ago(Holder), and how many people wanted out? With this much turnover, there has to be a why, besides coincidence, that resides with the top manager. Which is it? Does Obama not know how to hire people, hires the wrong people, or not know how to manage people? This turnover can't be blamed on low wages, or competition.

 

Another indicator: How many Democratic Senators and Congressman have retired since Obama took office?

The part about him changing his staff over and over is a very valid criticism. So is the part about him making mistakes that have impacted the economy. I think he tried to hard to get a quick fix, when only time would fix things.

 

As far as the senators, that was bound to happen if the economy didn't improve. We aren't a patient bunch. The economy doesn't care if we are patient or not.

[3rdnlng]

The paths that Obama has taken are ones he learned about from leftist professors, etc. They are not paths he would follow because he has successful experience with them or even knowledge about their past success. It's simple, he's an idealogue. He picked the wrong ideals though.

[OCinBuffalo]

The part about him changing his staff over and over is a very valid criticism. So is the part about him making mistakes that have impacted the economy. I think he tried to hard to get a quick fix, when only time would fix things.

 

As far as the senators, that was bound to happen if the economy didn't improve. We aren't a patient bunch. The economy doesn't care if we are patient or not.

Perhaps the stimulus was intended to be a quick fix, but I'm being generous with that. I could just as easily make the case that the Stimulus was the biggest non-Keynsian, Keynsian Stimulus of all time. You know that it sucked when clowns like Krugman can only defend it by saying it was too small. A F'ing trillion, Paul? Too small? But, yeah, one hopes that a stimulus is a quick fix to the economy.

 

However, Obamacare was not. It was a be all, end all, one size fits all, sweeping, 2k page piece of legislation that has spawned 10k pages of new regulations. In an already over-regulated industry, 10k pages of new regulation is the diametric opposite of what is needed. You know you are in trouble when elected officials are incapable of telling you how Medicare actually works, why Medicaid is costing them so much, etc., and now Obamacare dwarfs those programs in its scope. There is nothing that can be described as "quick" or a "fix" with regard to the abortion that is Obamacare.

 

What both programs were: an open license for every crackpot sociologist, government bureaucrat, and long standing "Women's studies researcher" to fund all of their pet projects, that wiser minds have historically denied.

 

Obama was betrayed by these people. There's no other way to look at it. He sincerely believed that they would help him, and the country. Instead, they took his money and ran...Solyndra.

 

The unfortunate problem for Obama is: how can we expect him, after showing such poor judgment, to suddenly turn into Solomon, if re-elected? We have a better chance of Iran's leadership turning into pumpkins.

Edited May 8, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[Adam]

Perhaps the stimulus was intended to be a quick fix, but I'm being generous with that. I could just as easily make the case that the Stimulus was the biggest non-Keynsian, Keynsian Stimulus of all time. You know that it sucked when clowns like Krugman can only defend it by saying it was too small. A F'ing trillion, Paul? Too small? But, yeah, one hopes that a stimulus is a quick fix to the economy.

 

However, Obamacare was not. It was a be all, end all, one size fits all, sweeping, 2k page piece of legislation that has spawned 10k pages of new regulations. In an already over-regulated industry, 10k pages of new regulation is the diametric opposite of what is needed. You know you are in trouble when elected officials are incapable of telling you how Medicare actually works, why Medicaid is costing them so much, etc., and now Obamacare dwarfs those programs in its scope. There is nothing that can be described as "quick" or a "fix" with regard to the abortion that is Obamacare.

 

What both programs were: an open license for every crackpot sociologist, government bureaucrat, and long standing "Women's studies researcher" to fund all of their pet projects, that wiser minds have historically denied.

 

Obama was betrayed by these people. There's no other way to look at it. He sincerely believed that they would help him, and the country. Instead, they took his money and ran...Solyndra.

 

The unfortunate problem for Obama is: how can we expect him, after showing such poor judgment, to suddenly turn into Solomon, if re-elected? We have a better chance of Iran's leadership turning into pumpkins.

I haven't heard the affordable health care act defended by a single person. It was done quickly and very sloppy. I think I remember seeing a conservative on thw board actually saying he would have preferred single paper to it.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing it gone. It won't affect me that much either way, but it looks as if it would damage others.

[John Adams]

1336422877[/url]' post='2460317']

Name calling the President of the US? You're a class act and a winner. The guy has accomplished more than you can ever dream of. Even if I wasn't a fan of the POTUS, I'd respect whoever is in office and treat them the respect that comes with the office.

 

But keep up your bitching on a Bills' message board. You are making a huge change in this country. Jackass.

 

Aww, boo hoo. Did you not get your bottle today?

When you act like a jackass, you're a jackass. Doesn't matter your age, job, sex, race, etc. Clinton in Lewinskygate, jackass. Bush for making up reasons to invade Iraq, jackass.

Obama for making killing OBL about Romney, jackass.

[Chef Jim]

Perhaps. Certainly the economy is on Obama though. Romney may get undue credit if it turns around....but Obama is definitely responsible for a significant part of the problem with the Stimulus and Obamacare.

 

I have found the characteristic of a top manager that is most likely to yield insight is: to whom they delegate their power and why.

 

One or two economic advisers being replaced is one thing. Certainly it's a fair expectation that most people that start with an administration won't be there when it ends, etc. However, when the entire economic teams leaves in the space of 6 months....when you've had 4 different chiefs of staff....when you keep firing generals....when you appoint Van Jones to anything, for any reason...when Eric Holder is your attorney general, and you refuse to fire him....

 

the picture becomes clear. Again, whom did he hire, and why? How did they do? How many people had to get fired, who should have been fired a long time ago(Holder), and how many people wanted out? With this much turnover, there has to be a why, besides coincidence, that resides with the top manager. Which is it? Does Obama not know how to hire people, hires the wrong people, or not know how to manage people? This turnover can't be blamed on low wages, or competition.

 

Another indicator: How many Democratic Senators and Congressman have retired since Obama took office?

 

The books that come out after he leaves office, whether it's 8 months or four years and 8 months will be very interesting indeed.

[Adam]

Aww, boo hoo. Did you not get your bottle today?

When you act like a jackass, you're a jackass. Doesn't matter your age, job, sex, race, etc. Clinton in Lewinskygate, jackass. Bush for making up reasons to invade Iraq, jackass.

Obama for making killing OBL about Romney, jackass.

President Clinton wasn't very smart to lie about the whole thing, but there was no valid reason to impeach him. President Bush didn't have to make up anything. There was valid reason to go into Iraq. We should have paid for the war though.

[3rdnlng]

President Clinton wasn't very smart to lie about the whole thing, but there was no valid reason to impeach him. President Bush didn't have to make up anything. There was valid reason to go into Iraq. We should have paid for the war though.

 

 

There was no technical reason to impeach Clinton. It has nothing to do with getting bj's from an intern. He lied under oath. If he had any sense whatsoever he would have made it about protecting the "honor" of a young woman. What woman wouldn't respect that and what guy wouldn't say he was a stand up guy.

Edited May 8, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Adam]

There was technical reason to impeach Clinton. It has nothing to do with getting bj's from an intern. He lied under oath. If he had any sense whatsoever he would have made it about protecting the "honor" of a young woman. What woman wouldn't respect that and what guy wouldn't say he was a stand up guy.

the lie was tossed out of the case, because it wasn't perjury. That doesn't mean it wasn't idiotic.

[3rdnlng]

the lie was tossed out of the case, because it wasn't perjury. That doesn't mean it wasn't idiotic.

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

[Adam]

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

he was asked a question that was completely irrelevant to the Whitewater case and lied about it. Because it was irrelevant, the question and answer were tossed, making it dishonorable, but not illegal.

[3rdnlng]

he was asked a question that was completely irrelevant to the Whitewater case and lied about it. Because it was irrelevant, the question and answer were tossed, making it dishonorable, but not illegal.

 

 

Adam, I don't want to be argumentative, and there is a chance that my memory fails me on this. Please be more specific. I always thought that Clinton was somewhat of a dufus but was a quick learner and ended up being ok in the job, mainly because he was smart enough to recognize and follow the sentiment of the country. It's amazing, you bring up "Whitewater" when the sleazy Chicago RE deals betwen Obama and Rezko haven't brought any MSM attention.

[DC Tom]

President Clinton wasn't very smart to lie about the whole thing, but there was no valid reason to impeach him. President Bush didn't have to make up anything. There was valid reason to go into Iraq. We should have paid for the war though.

 

Actually, lying under oath was a very valid reason, under the letter of the law.

 

 

Blisteringly stupid, and a complete waste of time. But legally valid.

[Doc]

President Clinton wasn't very smart to lie about the whole thing, but there was no valid reason to impeach him. President Bush didn't have to make up anything. There was valid reason to go into Iraq. We should have paid for the war though.

There appeared to be a reason to go into Iraq. Turned out it was bogus.

 

Actually, lying under oath was a very valid reason, under the letter of the law.

 

 

Blisteringly stupid, and a complete waste of time. But legally valid.

Yep. They were desperate to pin something on him.

[Adam]

Adam, I don't want to be argumentative, and there is a chance that my memory fails me on this. Please be more specific. I always thought that Clinton was somewhat of a dufus but was a quick learner and ended up being ok in the job, mainly because he was smart enough to recognize and follow the sentiment of the country. It's amazing, you bring up "Whitewater" when the sleazy Chicago RE deals betwen Obama and Rezko haven't brought any MSM attention.

He was impeached for lying about Monica Lewinsky during the Whitewater case. That topic wasn't relevant to the case at hand, so it could.t be perjury and was thrown out. Is that what you are asking about- I am over tired, so I may be misreading it.

 

Aside from that, he seemed to be a decent president in some regards, even if he wasn't a great person.

[Wacka]

I thought it was during Paula Jones' case, not Whitewater.