Oh, and one more thing.

People, respond how and to what you want to respond to. It's amazing how people don't want to bring [!@#$%^&*] up, and then they bring it up. Tell us all how you feel, and if people can't handle the responses,, then maybe they should check themselves instead of telling others how they should or what they should repsond to.

UCLAN, you stated your case nicely. At least you are giving the man more than two months before you past judement, and not saying his precidency is a disaster. Can you imagine what would happen if Hillary was in there and I or you or anyone else said crap like that?

Obama and the Democrats just had a terrible week.

First, there's the matter of Obama's tasteless "joke" where he compared his bowling skills to those athletes who compete in the Special Olympics. I find it really pathetic that fellow Democrats (including the Shriver family, which runs the Special Olympics) are making all sorts of excuses for him by stating that he really didn't mean anything hurtful by this joke. Can you imagine the holy hell that would be happening had Bush made this comment?

Then, of course, there's the fake outrage that Obama expressed over the AIG executives being paid huge bonuses. What's fake about this outrage was that it was produced only after the public had become so upset over finding out about the AIG bonuses. In fact, not only did Obama know that this "bonus clause" was in the bill he signed, but it was Geithner himself who pushed Senate Democrats to insert such a clause in the first place. (And don't even get me started on Chris Dood, who first said that he had no idea who inserted that bonus clause into the bill, but then--the very next day--admitted that he was the guilty party.)

Obama's first two months have been nothing but an endless series of blunders. (Which is to be expected given the fact that he had so little experience prior to being elected.) Now, I can almost be certain that one of the Democrats who post here will respond to this fact by stating "he's still a lot better than Bush." Unfortunately, that is a pointless line of attack for two reasons: First, his opponent in the last election was John McCain, not Bush. And secondly, Obama, his supporters, and the media set forth much higher expectations for Obama (when compared to the expectations Bush was faced with when he took office) by constantly comparing him to Lincoln and stating that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Anybody is entitled to think that the liberal agenda is much better than the conservative one. However, what would be so refreshing is for any liberal to acknowledge the simple truth: that Obama is very much the typcial opportunistic politician as opposed to the great savior who's going to bridge the partisan divide and put an end to politics as usual.

Which is amazing, because we tried the conservative agenda..........

AND LOOK AT HOW FUCKED UP THE DAMN COUNTRY IS.

Like the conservative agenda was such a rousing [!@#$%^&*] sucess. Max, you come off like everyone is doing so [!@#$%^&*] well they shouldn't be complaining, which proves that you've been living in a cave for the last 8 years.

Edited March 22, 200916 yr by Roman

Roman, the point of my previous post was not to knock the liberal agenda or defend the conservative one. (Thus, I am not attacking you for being a liberal.) Rather, it was to point out that Obama has dismally failed to live up to the hype that you and his other supporters cultivated throughout the course of the campaign. Obama is nothing more than your typical phony, run-of-the-mill politican, as opposed to being this great savior that you and others purported him to be.

I find it interesting that you are not even addressing this issue (about Obama not being all that he was hyped up to be). Instead, all you have done is made a couple of nasty and vitriolic posts in response to what Brian and I have said.

Edited March 22, 200916 yr by Max

Roman, the point of my previous post was not to knock the liberal agenda. (Thus, I am not attacking you for being a liberal.) Rather, it was to point out that Obama has dismally failed to live up to the hype that you and his other supporters cultivated throughout the course of the campaign. Obama is nothing more than your typical phony, run-of-the-mill politican, as opposed to being this great savior that you and others purported him to be.

I find it interesting that you are not even addressing this issue (about Obama not being all that he was hyped up to be). Instead, all you have done is made a couple of nasty and vitriolic posts in response to what Brian and I have said.

One. Who said I was a liberal?

Two. You're the last one to talk about nasty posts.

Three. I find it interesting that after two months in office, he's a dismal failure, but Bush did such a great job. These are my thoughts and my responses, and, if they offend you or you don't like them.....

Tough. After 8 years of the previous [!@#$%^&*], and unlike you, I'll give the man a chance. Since you seem not to want to do the very same thing......for the good of the country and her people.

Oh, and do me a favor. Tell Bush Happy Hour ends at 5 weekdays, since many of us didn't know when he was sober or drunk.

Edited March 22, 200916 yr by Roman

I'd love to see where those who are worried about our country right now, predicting the apocalypse and the end of democracy, are gonna be four years from now.

And I wonder what would the right would have said under Ronald Reagan, when he first stepped into office and the economy hit rock bottom in 1982? (Which it did) Would they have been as eager to put it on him, as they are doing now with our current president?

I admit these first few months of Obama's presidency have not been the smoothest, but compared to the start of both Clinton and Bush's presidencies, it makes these first few months seem like a walk in a park. Just because the past three months have not been the most easiest, doesn't mean the next four years are going to be the end all be all of America as some are making it out to be.

I sometimes think that people thought that 1 min after President Obama was sworn in that the skies would open and heaven would declare that all our problems are solved because "he is now President" (think of that as being said in a loud bellowing hallowed voice) Come on what did people expect? Our problems are too massive to solve in 2 months. Progress is being made slowly. The last couple of posts exemplify the extreme partisanism on both sides. To truely solve our problems we have to let go of our ideology on both sides. What's that word? Compromise.

If you're ready to throw in the towel after 2 months, what are you going to do for the next 3 or so years? What's that saying, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Thanks MichaelGL for reminding everyone that new administrations have rocky starts and all is not rosey

Oh well. I don't feel any of the posts addressed what I said - maybe a little with UClan's but even with that I would love to think what he said is true but I highly have my doubts. Our accountant has never been wrong on matters like these and that has nothing to do with politics as he is a democrat himself and proudly displays the Obama coins in his office that he bought off TV.

I am just dealing with things and going on. The accountant is helping me to put the final touches on closing my business and call it over and done. I'll write it all off as a loss on the tax return next year and move on.

As to anything I said it had nothing to do with who is in office it was just what was on my mind.

And I agree with what Michael said every administration is rocky at first even Reagans. It wasn't all peaches and cream back then. And his wife caused him more of his problems when he got in. It was the same with Jackie Kennedy. The early days of both Kennedy and Reagans administrations were filled with the press focusing on the decorating of the White House, the new china, and what both ladies were wearing. And both times Presidential advisers had to step in and get both ladies to back off what they were doing because it was bringing too much negative focus on their husbands. That is when Nancy Reagan quit talking about such things in interviews and adopted the Just Say No To Drugs campaign and that was her focus for the rest of the Reagan Presidency. I give Michelle Obama credit that her first days have been the best part of Obama's first few months as she has done nothing to bring negative publicity to her husband.

Brian, guess what?

I no longer give a [!@#$%^&*] what you think.

If you think he's doing poorly, fine. [!@#$%^&*] it.

After what he was left, and after a long campaign season where everyone else sounded like the idiots they were, things are more important than a partisan who no matter what seems to not long at things objectively and seems to hang on to the hatred he or she has for a president, even when they are telling others not to do the very same thing they are doing.

Oh well, Brian. Your [!@#$%^&*] loss, man.

Roman, no gain - no loss. Honestly, Obama is having a really bad run out of the gate. I'm not making it up... The country is uncomfortable with the massive waste in the stimulus, and every time the man courts the media, he puts his foot in his mouth. I wasn't particularly offended by the joke about special olympics... but his performance on "60 Minutes" was stunningly poor. He just isn't doing well and, yes, it is strictly and solely my opinion.

But please don't take my opinion personally, Roman. I was just responding to Steve's post so don't be angry with me...

B

I'd love to see where those who are worried about our country right now, predicting the apocalypse and the end of democracy, are gonna be four years from now.

And I wonder what would the right would have said under Ronald Reagan, when he first stepped into office and the economy hit rock bottom in 1982? (Which it did) Would they have been as eager to put it on him, as they are doing now with our current president?

I admit these first few months of Obama's presidency have not been the smoothest, but compared to the start of both Clinton and Bush's presidencies, it makes these first few months seem like a walk in a park. Just because the past three months have not been the most easiest, doesn't mean the next four years are going to be the end all be all of America as some are making it out to be.

Actually, Michael, Reagan DID take a LOT of heat but somehow sold his economic policies to both Democrats and Republicans. And America did prosper in those "self-indulgent" 80's. Some have argued that Clinton rode the crest of Reagan's wave. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. As for Clinton, then Bush, Jr., I don't really recall a rocky start to Clinton's presidency - at least policywise. And I don't really recall much about Bush's first months in office... nothing really happened until 9/11.

Actually, Michael, Reagan DID take a LOT of heat but somehow sold his economic policies to both Democrats and Republicans. And America did prosper in those "self-indulgent" 80's. Some have argued that Clinton rode the crest of Reagan's wave. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. As for Clinton, then Bush, Jr., I don't really recall a rocky start to Clinton's presidency - at least policywise. And I don't really recall much about Bush's first months in office... nothing really happened until 9/11.

And how big was the deficit when he left office?

On both sides, many need to look at what was and is instead of seeing what they want to see.

Bush had aprroval ratings in the low 50s and couldn't get much of anything done. So, Brian, if you are a student of history, it is real easy to say Obama is doing a horrible job but you can't remember what Bush did.

Roman, no gain - no loss. Honestly, Obama is having a really bad run out of the gate. I'm not making it up... The country is uncomfortable with the massive waste in the stimulus, and every time the man courts the media, he puts his foot in his mouth. I wasn't particularly offended by the joke about special olympics... but his performance on "60 Minutes" was stunningly poor. He just isn't doing well and, yes, it is strictly and solely my opinion.

But please don't take my opinion personally, Roman. I was just responding to Steve's post so don't be angry with me...

B

Oh Brian not angry at all. But if it was so bad why is his approval numbers sill high? There must be most people who think he's doing a good job. Many think he needs to slow down. Never heard that about Bust, Clinton, Reagan, or Bush Sr.

Actually, Michael, Reagan DID take a LOT of heat but somehow sold his economic policies to both Democrats and Republicans. And America did prosper in those "self-indulgent" 80's. Some have argued that Clinton rode the crest of Reagan's wave. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. As for Clinton, then Bush, Jr., I don't really recall a rocky start to Clinton's presidency - at least policywise. And I don't really recall much about Bush's first months in office... nothing really happened until 9/11.

Clinton got alot of heat his first few months in office, when he nominated alot of his friends, who had no experience in Washington whatsoever, to be in his cabinet. I might also add that Obama currently has more filled positions in his cabinet than when both Bush Jr and Clinton had during their first few months.

I didn't say America did not prosper, but Reagan did get off to a rocky start, just like Obama has. Some would say we didn't really begin to prosper as a country until 85. In fact it took Reagan alot longer to turn a nation that had one of the highest unemployment rates in history than Obama's 70 something days currently in office. It took Reagan more than a year to completely turn things around, and some would say he did so simply by spending. Just like Reagan, Obama didn't create this economic crisis, he inherited it from his predecessor and it's going to take a very long time to turn things around, alot longer than two months. Whether you agree or disagree about his policies is another thing, but at least he's doing something about it. I think the best thing to do now is wait to see how things play out.

I also seem to recall one of either Bush Jr or Clinton's appointee's having issues regarding having hired an illegal immigrant to work for them.

And how big was the deficit when he left office?

On both sides, many need to look at what was and is instead of seeing what they want to see.

Bush had aprroval ratings in the low 50s and couldn't get much of anything done. So, Brian, if you are a student of history, it is real easy to say Obama is doing a horrible job but you can't remember what Bush did.

Oh Brian not angry at all. But if it was so bad why is his approval numbers sill high? There must be most people who think he's doing a good job. Many think he needs to slow down. Never heard that about Bust, Clinton, Reagan, or Bush Sr.

Hey Roman,

Actually, we don't disagree on your point. You may recall that I have said many times that President Bush failed on many levels, particularly managing government spending. It is a laugh to state that he is a fiscal conservative because he had absolutely no reservations about signing into law any and every pork-filled bill that passed across his desk.

A majority of those polled in America do NOT like the stimulus bill(s). But the majority of those polled in America still like Barack Obama. You can like a guy but dislike his policies. You can be uneasy about the guy's capabilities in office but still concede that he's a nice guy. I think Bush is, for example, a really nice guy... I just think he and his administration derailed.

I think Obama is attempting to do too much too early... and many aren't ready for much of what he wishes to do. And whoever is counseling him to go on Leno and "60 Minutes" needs to be fired. We don't want to be entertained by our President... we desire that he lead the country. I'm much more interested in his policy decisions than his March Madness picks...

Clinton got alot of heat his first few months in office, when he nominated alot of his friends, who had no experience in Washington whatsoever, to be in his cabinet. I might also add that Obama currently has more filled positions in his cabinet than when both Bush Jr and Clinton had during their first few months.

I didn't say America did not prosper, but Reagan did get off to a rocky start, just like Obama has. Some would say we didn't really begin to prosper as a country until 85. In fact it took Reagan alot longer to turn a nation that had one of the highest unemployment rates in history than Obama's 70 something days currently in office. It took Reagan more than a year to completely turn things around, and some would say he did so simply by spending. Just like Reagan, Obama didn't create this economic crisis, he inherited it from his predecessor and it's going to take a very long time to turn things around, alot longer than two months. Whether you agree or disagree about his policies is another thing, but at least he's doing something about it. I think the best thing to do now is wait to see how things play out.

I also seem to recall one of either Bush Jr or Clinton's appointee's having issues regarding having hired an illegal immigrant to work for them.

Regardless of my personal politics, Michael, I definitely hope Obama can get us out of the mess we're in. I'm feeling fairly secure in my situation... we're doing very well right now... but I also believe things can change quickly in this economic environment. We just bought a house and a car. While at one of the dealerships we visited this past weekend, there was a couple nearby who was told flat-out by the salesman that he couldn't sell them a car because the bank wouldn't give them a loan because of poor credit. I felt kind of bad for them, particularly because we were obviously working on a deal (meaning WE were in a position to buy) -- but more so because the salesman said it so loud that everyone nearby could hear. The woman had this distressed look on her face... While I felt bad, I couldn't help but wonder how they could be out shopping for a car... they HAD to know they had rotten credit!

While I agree that Bush bears some responsibility for the current crisis, I think it is unfair to pin it ALL on him. I think a lot of the problem really rests on the banks, lenders, greedy wall street dicks, realtors and their dishonest brokers, and stupid people living beyond their means.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...E2%80%9850-50_/

Just thought I'd add this article to the conversation, from the Boston Herald. It indicates that Obama's approval is slipping. I thought this was relevant to our discussion here, as the article was just posted today.

B

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politi...E2%80%9850-50_/

Just thought I'd add this article to the conversation, from the Boston Herald. It indicates that Obama's approval is slipping. I thought this was relevant to our discussion here, as the article was just posted today.

B

According to a just released CBS Poll (released Monday evening March 23), Obama's job performance approval ratings have gone up and his job performance disapproval ratings have gone down and approval of the way he is handling the economy has gone up 5%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/23/...in4886328.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/o...e_n_178453.html

Edited March 24, 200916 yr by Darcy

I have learned that all the polls have a lot to do with which network and stuff does them.

I have seen in the last few days polls where his approval ratings are slipping and some where it is up. It all boils down to who they ask and often what network or whatever is asking.

Out local paper recently did one and over 70% of folks asked do not approve of what he has done so far, but I would expect that since in all the polls done during the election by the paper had McCain beating Obama by 69%.