Obama plays more golf in 9 months than Bush did in nearly three years...
Dumbya stated that he didn't want to be seen playing golf while troops and families of troops he put in harm's way deal with war/grief.
That might have been the only sensible thought he made in 8 years.
Although, his no-more-golf announcement came soon after he tweaked his knee while mountain biking. He basically couldn't swing a golf club after this fall.
I think it's reasonable for Obama to golf no more than 3 or 4 times a year, unless it is his sporting passion. It is not. Basketball is his sporting passion.
That might have been the only sensible thought he made in 8 years.
Although, his no-more-golf announcement came soon after he tweaked his knee while mountain biking. He basically couldn't swing a golf club after this fall.
I think it's reasonable for Obama to golf no more than 3 or 4 times a year, unless it is his sporting passion. It is not. Basketball is his sporting passion.
I'm happy to pass on the my team vs. your team approach to this crap.
I don't think that a prez of a country that's involved in 2 hot wars should really be out and about golfing.
I recall even Dubya (finally) gave it up towards the end of his 2nd term (and yeah, I did question the sincerity of it at the time). Unless Obama's brought all of our troops home and closed all the sketchy prisons, he shouldn't be golfing.
I don't think that a prez of a country that's involved in 2 hot wars should really be out and about golfing.
I recall even Dubya (finally) gave it up towards the end of his 2nd term (and yeah, I did question the sincerity of it at the time). Unless Obama's brought all of our troops home and closed all the sketchy prisons, he shouldn't be golfing.
Oh, that's a very interesting timeframe you've established there. So, presidents are responsible for what happens during their presidency, once they're 9 months into it, eh?
So, I'm trying to think of what happened about 9 months into Dubya's first term that so many right-wing dittoheads have lamely tried to blame on Clinton the "DemoCrap".
Do you ever analyze anything with more depth than a shallow puddle?
Although to be fair, a significant amount of the blame for 9/11 - especially by the siting administration and their supporters - was put upon Bill Clinton even though it occurred 9 months after he had left office.
That blame in particular seems far more unjustified than the blame now being put on Bush for the situation he left the country in. After all 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and there were warning signs beforehand which seem to have been ignored or not taken seriously. Whereas most of the problems the Obama administration are now facing were inherited from those in his position previously.
[I don't want to get into a 9/11 debate because that's not what this thread is about. I'm just pointing out a slight fallacy within this argument.]
EDIT:It seems like F-K beat me to the point whilst I was editing. :dunno:
:hatsoff:
They were blaming Clinton for years and some still do.He only lobbed missiles and didn't attack countries they say.I don't even bother to answer it anymore.Some people view it as just do this "attack" people thing and it will resolve the problem.Then they complain your not fighting the wars the right way when they don't seem to be getting us anywhere.It's the same logic that kept us in Vietnam for 10 years with eventually 500,000 troops on the ground.That didn't work and our latest little deals ain't gonna work eitheir.The world is just not the way it once was.You can't just invade kick ass and subdue people like you once could.Were all so connected plus we aren't so powerfull nobody like the Russians and others couldn't hurt us(nukes) that you just aren't allowed to pulverize anybody anymore and flatten cities etc.
jasonk282
Banned
So, I'm trying to think of what happened about 9 months into Dubya's first term that so many right-wing dittoheads have lamely tried to blame on Clinton the "DemoCrap".
Do you ever analyze anything with more depth than a shallow puddle?
Ever hear of 9/11? They were basicly saying the Clinton knew and did nothing.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/billC.htm
Thank you come again:wave:
Oh, that's a very interesting timeframe you've established there. So, presidents are responsible for what happens during their presidency, once they're 9 months into it, eh?
So, I'm trying to think of what happened about 9 months into Dubya's first term that so many right-wing dittoheads have lamely tried to blame on Clinton the "DemoCrap".
Do you ever analyze anything with more depth than a shallow puddle?
Oh. My. God!!
For f***k's sake, jasonk, did you feel something like a tornado part your hair right down the middle there???
Yes, 9/11 was precisely what I was referring to. It happened about 9 months into Dubya's presidency. But, going by your standard that a president (or his supporters) can't blame the PREVIOUS president once they are 9 months into their presidency, then I guess all of those people (including you, perhaps?) who were absurdly trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 will have to give that one up in order to be logically consistent, right??
Right???
:dunno:
[I'm finding it hard to believe that I actually had to explain that.]
jasonk282
Banned
Your right and it was wrong that Bush and his cronnies were blaming Clinton, just like it wrong that Obama and his cronnies are blaming Bush. Stop whining over what the other person did and fn fix it already!
Why can't we all just agree that the Dems and Republicans both suck now? :dunno:
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
...but that wouldn't be as much fun! Has anyone else noticed? Politics, like sports, has become a competitive arena for the fans, picking their side and arguing which is the better team. Most of these political threads on here basically bog down to this, with substantial information often ignored and mudslinging happily joined into. Real debate isn't as much fun - somebody can lose! And who likes to lose?
Just a game. Which is indicative, I feel, with how some people actually vote, which is far more dangerous.
I have no idea what "cronnies" are, but I'll address the gist of what you said.
Bush and Cheney were big proponents of a strong, unitary executive that could simply make things happen, especially in terms of national defense. Whatever Clinton's shortcomings in that area (not stopping the terrorists-in-training) there were PLENTY of opportunities for Bush & Cheney to stop the 9/11 terrorists. Bush got a memo explicitly saying that Al Qaeda had plans to attack using commercial jetliners, and after getting it, Bush took a vacation. It's not like they needed to build up an intelligence infrastructure. The NSA, FBI, and CIA were giving them the info they needed to do something. And it's not like they were under the thumb of the ACLU, so felt restrained in any way to not just go crazy (go overboard, go extreme) to prevent an attack.
It's considerably different to stop and clean up after disastrous wars and economic collapse that were obviously started by the previous administration. Personally, I don't think Obama's doing very well thus far, but even if he actually, sincerely WANTS to, it wouldn't be the easiest task ever, especially the economic mess. I think he could have shut down Gitmo and brought our troops home by now, but he hasn't. So, I do blame him for that.
So, I think your 9-month cut-off is ridiculous and arbitrary, but it also isn't true in some cases.
If we continued doing what Bush & Cheney (or, worse, what the crazy Fox-fringe to the RIGHT of THEM is always crying for) were doing, we would be in an even more disastrous scenario than we have now, on various fronts.
Oh, definitely, I agree!!
However, many people who feel this way feel so for different reasons. There's a far-right fringe in this country, I think probably no more than 10-15% of the country, who is actually to the right of the Bush-Cheney types. They think the GOP sucks because they're not conservative enough. And naturally, they hate Dems too, as they see them as communists, fascists, nazis, terrorists, etc. (insert silly smear of your choice).
There's also a group that ranges from the center to the left that is dissatisfied with both parties because, in truth, both parties actually exist, on most issues, to the right of center. So, they think the Dems suck for not having any spine and acting even half as liberal as they are continually accused of being, and of course, they are repulsed by the GOP, which exists pretty far to the right end of things...
Try using this nifty interactive graphic to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?ak=on&az=on&il=on&ny=on
and see this, too:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
So, I can agree that both parties suck, but not necessarily for the same reason as some.
:2 cents:
Both parties DO suck and are out for one thing - power. Power over YOU!
jasonk282
Banned
As so as you all realize this we can get to work on fixing it.
If only Obama would end these 2 senseless, meaningless wars which will go down in history as Dumbya's wars even if Obama keeps asking Congress to fund them for 8 more years. We will just label Obama as a surprisingly aggressive, war-mongering president and NOT a president of peace like we all thought he'd be when we elected him.
If we still have troops of any kind in Afghan and/or Iraq in 1 year, I say we demand Obama give back his Nobel....:dunno:
If we still have troops of any kind in Afghan and/or Iraq in 1 year, I say we demand Obama give back his Nobel....:dunno:
jasonk282
Banned
I agree on the NPP part. I was not around but was Vietnam Nixon's war or LBJ's war? I think it better to say that Bush started the wars but Obama ran on a platform to end the wars, which looks like he is not going to do. He has till next week to sign the troop increase that has been on his desk since AUGUST. He is waiting for the election results in Afghan. I really think this President is afraid to piss off his base.
FYP to what I think it is suppose to say. I too believe this, it is time to do research on the candidates before we pick the most charismatic one. Neither presidential candidate in the last 3 elections was even worth the ground they walk on. Please please please do some research and encourage others to do the same. Get informed it is well worth it in the future. Time to take our country back folks!:nanner:
Similar threads
