General Politics Thread

[MATRIX 2]

oh please... EVERYONE is better off than they were summer 2008.

watching inside the situation room right now...
not sure where you're getting your info from... sounds like sour grapes... and right wing boo-hooing

Funny you say that. My mom had a job in 2008. Not so today. That's just 1 example going against your overly general statement.

You have to be a pretty poor judge of a person character if you think I'm a "right winger" Not that there is anything wrong with being a "right winger'

Yet we continue to add jobs, continue to add programs for education, and continue to make progress in the far east.

Yes because that totally encompasses the term improvement. Stop being so narrow minded. Or vague for that matter.

Programs for education, like what?

Far East? Its 2012, not 1912 you can say China. (or whatever country you are referring to). And again, what kind of progress?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154406/Jo...Year-High.aspx

Funny how you interpret my definition of improvement to jobs. Don't be so narrow minded either.

[plustheharm]

At first I was all like;



but then;

[DayWalker]

what was that term plustheharm?

pube picking? very appropriate

[plustheharm]

Pulling ball hair is the new whatever.

Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk 2

[btbam]

Yet we continue to add jobs, continue to add programs for education, and continue to make progress in the far east.

Education is primarily regulated by state and local govts. Funded by them too so you cant really credit any one on the federal level for positives or failures in education.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[MATRIX 2]

At first I was all like;



but then;

So you like BDSM and cigarettes.

[Chille]

So you like BDSM and cigarettes.

Did someone say BDSM? *appears*

[MATRIX 2]

Did someone say BDSM? *appears*

With Bill Clinton on the giving end.

[weskurtz81]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154406/Jo...Year-High.aspx

Yeah, things are better than they were but it will be at a long term price.

speaking of who's keeping their campaign promises and who's not:

GOP/Tea Baggers:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ledge-o-meter/

Obama:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/

Yeah, 68 of Obama's promises broken and 2 of the GOP promises broken...

Like I've said before, I'm just not a fan of many of his policies or his leadership. The economy, while doing better, is still bouncing off the bottom and we will ultimately pay in the long run for our reckless spending and debt creation...

[The Black Wolf]

Education is primarily regulated by state and local govts. Funded by them too so you cant really credit any one on the federal level for positives or failures in education.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

Then why is it at one point the president cracked down on teachers that weren't teaching up to par? He talked about a program in which schools that are up to par receive more funds.

And okay, I'll stop being vague. Obama has made more progress in the Middle East than Bush had in 8 years. They're withdrawing troops and under his adminstration they actually found Bin Laden. As for the economy, do you really need me to post a graph?

[weskurtz81]

Then why is it at one point the president cracked down on teachers that weren't teaching up to par? He talked about a program in which schools that are up to par receive more funds.

And okay, I'll stop being vague. Obama has made more progress in the Middle East than Bush had in 8 years. They're withdrawing troops and under his adminstration they actually found Bin Laden. As for the economy, do you really need me to post a graph?

More progress than Bush in 8 years? Obama wouldn't have been able to do what he did had the prior 8 years not happened. Things were stabilizing in Iraq before Obama took office, the natural order would have been to start withdrawing troops after that. And, the intel that led to the capture/killing of Bin Laden came from water boarding KSM....

So, come on now, you know better than that.

As far as the economy, a little graph doesn't paint the whole picture, things have improved but the economy is far from being in a recovery mode... it's been bouncing off the bottom.

[plustheharm]

More progress than Bush in 8 years? Obama wouldn't have been able to do what he did had the prior 8 years not happened. .

LOL Obama owes Bush a lot more than I thought. Without Bush, Obama would be even worse! :sly::screwy:


Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk 2

[weskurtz81]

LOL Obama owes Bush a lot more than I thought. Without Bush, Obama would be even worse! :sly::screwy:

Reality is reality. I am not saying Bush did an outstanding job, but Obama was able to do what he did in Iraq because of what happened before he got into office, same goes for Bin Laden...

[plustheharm]

Was speaking more to the absurdity of that opening remark. Just seems like a cop out to suggest that, IMO. If Obama gets 4 more years, say he knocks out a huge portion of this debt, we're going to use Bush's 8 as an excuse, right? Couldn't have happened without him? Of course it couldn't.

"Hear about that forest fire they put out?"

"Well, yeah, but don't forget about the guy that set the fire. Without him, none of that would be possible."

If the table was flipped and the left was talking like that in this case they'd be lambasted.

Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk 2

[Morganator]

I like how those on the left are saying the employment situation is so much better when in all actuality, it's so much worse. Here's some data for you all to chew on.

This is what the administration is keen on using. It doesn't take into any account the real number due to other factors such those who were kicked off the unemployment insurance and those unable to find full time work and thus, resorting to part time work.



Here's the real unemployment rate which includes all the factors included those mentioned above.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/wha...-jobless-rate/

[Sub-stance1]

Then why is it at one point the president cracked down on teachers that weren't teaching up to par? He talked about a program in which schools that are up to par receive more funds.

And okay, I'll stop being vague. Obama has made more progress in the Middle East than Bush had in 8 years. They're withdrawing troops and under his adminstration they actually found Bin Laden. As for the economy, do you really need me to post a graph?

That's because he shifted our focus to where it should of been in the first place. Don't expect some to ever give credit though. Remember, Democrats are supposedly weak on foreign policy. Obama is supposedly an appeaser but more senior Al-queda have been killed under his administration than any other. I guess it's back to class warfare now....

[btbam]

Then why is it at one point the president cracked down on teachers that weren't teaching up to par? He talked about a program in which schools that are up to par receive more funds.

And okay, I'll stop being vague. Obama has made more progress in the Middle East than Bush had in 8 years. They're withdrawing troops and under his adminstration they actually found Bin Laden. As for the economy, do you really need me to post a graph?

The funding is miniscule when you look at the actual budget. I think what you are refering to was "the standards movement" which failed to really do anything. I saw somewhere like 13% of school budgets are federal dollars, and NCLB is basically an unfunded mandate. Schools really are impacted most by state govt. and schoolboards. As for obama wraping things up in the middle east, Bush set the time table for Iraq, so even when he wasn't president it was under his authority that agreement was made. Obama is responsible for the afghan withdraw, but the country will probably collapse after we leave anyway so we might as well leave the keys with the Taliban cus they'll be running it in 3 years anyway. Ultimatly it's for the best, we can't prop the up forever when we have our own problems to deal with.

[Sub-stance1]

As for obama wraping things up in the middle east, Bush set the time table for Iraq, so even when he wasn't president it was under his authority that agreement was made.

wait. So your saying Bush deserves some credit for the withdrawal. I don't think so. Basically, that date was set because we had to set a date for withdrawal. If he was still President, or Mccain would of won, we would probably still be there. Obama got us out of there because its was the right thing to do and we should of never been there in the first place.

Obama is responsible for the afghan withdraw, but the country will probably collapse after we leave anyway so we might as well leave the keys with the Taliban cus they'll be running it in 3 years anyway. Ultimatly it's for the best, we can't prop the up forever when we have our own problems to deal with.

Obama is responsible for both withdrawals and if the Taliban rules again the only people to blame will be the Afghans. Having a smaller footprint of more elite troops is probably for the best.

[MATRIX 2]

[weskurtz81]

Was speaking more to the absurdity of that opening remark. Just seems like a cop out to suggest that, IMO. If Obama gets 4 more years, say he knocks out a huge portion of this debt, we're going to use Bush's 8 as an excuse, right? Couldn't have happened without him? Of course it couldn't.

"Hear about that forest fire they put out?"

"Well, yeah, but don't forget about the guy that set the fire. Without him, none of that would be possible."

If the table was flipped and the left was talking like that in this case they'd be lambasted.

Sent from my EVO 4G using Tapatalk 2

Oh, you are saying if it wasn't for Bush we wouldn't have been in Iraq or Afghanistan.... I see. Sure, that argument can be made, but no one really knows what "might" have happened, only what "did" happen. My point is valid, had Obama been the President that was in office when both of those wars kicked off he probably wouldn't have accomplished what he has in 3 years. Does that make a little more sense?

I honestly think you are missing my point, it's not to give Bush credit, it's to say he wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he did in Iraq and in regards to Bin Laden had what happened before him not happened. There was too much that took far to long to get to where we are today and it wouldn't have happened in one term.

[plustheharm]

I did get the point, and I think there is - to a degree - some validity to it, but I don't think it's necessarily fair. And using words like 'probable' when speaking with such certainty isn't fair either. I wasn't trying to get into "what ifs," not wanting to either. But we can't speak for what could have possibly happened in those first three years because it's very likely that someone approaches the situation differently. What followed after 9/11 was an all out blitzkrieg, something we surely wouldn't expect from everyone.

I honestly don't think I'm missing the point, but seeing it for what it is; another attempt to shift focus away from a positive. Someone mentioned the "moving heaven and earth" quote or whatever and the same was done with Saddam. It's been the theme of this "war" as they go / went after certain "figures."

Again, I think if the tables were turned and the left were saying some of the things that have been said - not even here, but everywhere - they'd be met with entirely more outrage. No matter if the capture of KSM ultimately led to the capture / killing of Osama, it was the current standing leader that took the second initiative, made the risky call to proceed, and yet we are still trying to spin this.

[Sub-stance1]

I did get the point, and I think there is - to a degree - some validity to it, but I don't think it's necessarily fair. And using words like 'probable' when speaking with such certainty isn't fair either. I wasn't trying to get into "what ifs," not wanting to either. But we can't speak for what could have possibly happened in those first three years because it's very likely that someone approaches the situation differently. What followed after 9/11 was an all out blitzkrieg, something we surely wouldn't expect from everyone.

I honestly don't think I'm missing the point, but seeing it for what it is; another attempt to shift focus away from a positive. Someone mentioned the "moving heaven and earth" quote or whatever and the same was done with Saddam. It's been the theme of this "war" as they go / went after certain "figures."

Again, I think if the tables were turned and the left were saying some of the things that have been said - not even here, but everywhere - they'd be met with entirely more outrage. No matter if the capture of KSM ultimately led to the capture / killing of Osama, it was the current standing leader that took the second initiative, made the risky call to proceed, and yet we are still trying to spin this.

Agreed... and if he hadn't of delivered people would be saying that he failed on that promise.

[weskurtz81]

I did get the point, and I think there is - to a degree - some validity to it, but I don't think it's necessarily fair. And using words like 'probable' when speaking with such certainty isn't fair either. I wasn't trying to get into "what ifs," not wanting to either. But we can't speak for what could have possibly happened in those first three years because it's very likely that someone approaches the situation differently. What followed after 9/11 was an all out blitzkrieg, something we surely wouldn't expect from everyone.

I honestly don't think I'm missing the point, but seeing it for what it is; another attempt to shift focus away from a positive. Someone mentioned the "moving heaven and earth" quote or whatever and the same was done with Saddam. It's been the theme of this "war" as they go / went after certain "figures."

Again, I think if the tables were turned and the left were saying some of the things that have been said - not even here, but everywhere - they'd be met with entirely more outrage. No matter if the capture of KSM ultimately led to the capture / killing of Osama, it was the current standing leader that took the second initiative, made the risky call to proceed, and yet we are still trying to spin this.

I gave the guy credit for making the call (just not in that post), I just don't agree that someone can say "look at all he accomplished in 3 years" when it was 10+ years in the making. You have to consider what was done before him and give credit where it's due. There was a lot that took place prior to his term that gave him the opportunity for this to happen.

Does he deserve some credit? Of course he does because he would also get the blame! Does he deserve all the credit? No way Jose! If you are going to give him credit for what he accomplished over seas then the people that made it possible deserve credit as well, plain and simple. That's not shifting focus away from a positive, rather, it's seeing it for what it is.

As far as how much outrage the left may have realized for certain comments, that seems like a "what if" to me. Who knows, we can play that game for the rest of our lives without a winner. Giving credit where it's due isn't spin, but I think giving all the credit the the standing president is.

[btbam]

wait. So your saying Bush deserves some credit for the withdrawal. I don't think so. Basically, that date was set because we had to set a date for withdrawal. If he was still President, or Mccain would of won, we would probably still be there. Obama got us out of there because its was the right thing to do and we should of never been there in the first place.



Obama is responsible for both withdrawals and if the Taliban rules again the only people to blame will be the Afghans. Having a smaller footprint of more elite troops is probably for the best.

Yes. Bush did set the date for withdrawl in Iraq. You can look it up if you want, its Bush's signature on the agreements with the Iraq govt. Its a Status of Forces Agreement signed in 08 that detailed the withdrawl date. probably the last substantive thing Bush did in office. So yes...bush is responsible for the iraq withdrawl. Wed only be there if he violated the treaty he signed...so nice try. Obama is responsible for afghanistan.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[plustheharm]

Like I said, I think there is some validity to your point, and I never suggested he was the only one to thank for that, so I suppose I took the idea of it the wrong way. I guess I missed that mention of him having some play in the matter, or at least, getting some credit. I see the all too familiar statement about him not doing anything and then coupled with that other I assume we are just swinging it the other way. Then again, maybe you weren't one of the "he hasn't done anything" crowd, and I suppose I could go back and look buuuuuuuut the Bulls game just started.

As for the comments about the right and left, I don't see that as a "what if," but an established fact. One is entirely more grounded in habitual hounding of falsities than the other. Are both parties guilty of swinging the truth? Sure. One happens to be entirely more vocal in the matter, and is a documented truth.

I wouldn't suggest that anything accomplished in the M.E. couldn't have benefited from actions or measures taken before, but it seemed like there was an attempt at immediate dismissal because of past influence, action. Apologies for placing you in that camp, as it's obviously the wrong one.