The I Told You So Obama Will Fuck Up Thread

Analingus

Banned
Recovery Act? :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
[522 laid-off teachers might be rehired, superintendent says

By Joe Callahan
Staff writer

Published: Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 1:25 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 1:25 p.m.
OCALA — Superintendent of Schools Jim Yancey says he is now optimistic that most, if not all, of the 522 teachers laid off two months ago can be rehired over the summer.

However, he warned that many of those teachers would only have jobs for only as long as they are funded through the Federal Recovery Act, which expires in a little more than a year.

It also contingent on whether the state gets $2.2 billion in other stimulus funds, called stabilization dollars, that would generate another $13 million for Marion County schools.

Florida, which did not qualify for those funds, hopes to get a waiver from the federal government. State House Speaker Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, said Wednesday that possibility is likely.

It is also contingent upon both the Senate and the House of Representatives passing their current budget proposals and coming to a mutual agreement on one budget, likely by the end of the month.

Many of those teachers -- whose contracts were not renewed on Feb. 13 -- may be rehired with Recovery Act stimulus money for positions that will be eliminated when those federal dollars sunset in about a year.

However, those jobs could be saved if the economy bounces back and Florida’s revenue begins increasing again.]

http://www.ocala.com/article/20090409/articles/904099977
 
I assume you have a link to this to support your assertion. The links I could find say no such nonsense. Admit it, you've heard a word he's said without the filter of Faux, Hannity or "Lush" and you're no different from those lying saying Obama is going to take our "guns".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC5LyBWnyKQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0L2GEBhd2w


Dear Hot: I think you know the answer to your question..........there is no link to support his bs.

Maybe because he made it up?
 
What's wrong with pointing out all the dumbshit shit that white, conservatives believe in? Name the issue and the fingerprints of dumbassery are all over it...how many white, conservatives still think Saddam had a hand in 9/11 or that the WMD are still somewhere out in that desert?
 
What's wrong with pointing out all the dumbshit shit that white, conservatives believe in? Name the issue and the fingerprints of dumbassery are all over it...how many white, conservatives still think Saddam had a hand in 9/11 or that the WMD are still somewhere out in that desert?
In the case of the latter point there, you'd have to include Bill Clinton as well as Hans Blix.

As long as people keep trying to pin the fuck-ups on "the other" party, and ignore the exact same actions by those in "their own" party, we'll keep making the same mistakes and never get to solving the real problems.
 
In the case of the latter point there, you'd have to include Bill Clinton as well as Hans Blix.

Bill Clinton and Hans Blix believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11??

If you're alluding to Blix, Clinton and others belief that Hussein had WMD...the question did he possess them in 2003?

Blix didn't believe that, he asserted British and U.S. claims were exaggerated. But it didn't matter the deck was stacked....Even that wasn't good enough since we still bugged Blix and the UN....unbelievable.
 
I think the problems are on the way to being solved right now, actually, Prof. Even with conservative obstructionism.

I'm prepared to lay all of the blame of "misguided" Iraq and "disinterested" Afghanistan squarely on "gin'ed up" intel that Cheney banged out on his laptop, basically.

I will concede that the Dems pussed out of bringing a close to the Iraq War in 2007/2008. I still don't know why we're in these countries. Maybe to make Republicans feel good?
 
This is a rather silly thread..

Though amusing to read.

Well, Obama IS The Precident, and as a Canadian, I am thrilled for the US. I think he's got too many porblems people expect him to be able to magicaly fix but that he will bring about a lot of positive change in the end. Overall, I'd prefer to look at it as a positive move. Everything happens for a reason - Obama was the best man for the job, obviously.

Mostly though, I hope he bring most everyone from overseas, or fightng, home where they belong and out of danger.


www.destinydarlinglive.com
 
I think the problems are on the way to being solved right now, actually, Prof. Even with conservative obstructionism.
I'm honestly tired of the politics in general. I was tired with W. I'm even more tired after the Dems in 2007 (as were most Americans in the polls). And now it's just worse.

I'm prepared to lay all of the blame of "misguided" Iraq and "disinterested" Afghanistan squarely on "gin'ed up" intel that Cheney banged out on his laptop, basically.
Apparently you missed the bombing of Iraq in 1998 and Clinton's War on Terror that really picked up in 1998.

W. decided to put boots on the ground, but that doesn't mean a lot of the intel wasn't from before. In fact, I was for going in 1998, but against in 2003, because the intel was so out-of-date (as inspectors were kicked out in 1998). But I blame W. for actually invading.

In any case, Iraq never disclosed anything, and that's reality. Would have we invaded in 2003 had the Democrats taken Congress? Probably not, and I would have been happy that we did not. Again, I thought 2003 was too little, too late.

But anyone who thinks we wouldn't be in Afghanistan because of various entities and what they were doing to western interests is not only overlooking history and fact, but actually Obama's own policy -- both before and after the election. I haven't heard a peep out of Obama being against Afghanistan or thinking it was unwarranted, quite the opposite.

During his campaign, Obama complained (and rightly so) that Iraq was a major distraction from real threats, like terrorists havens in Afghanistan, and extortion by North Korea. People think the North Korean issue is about hypocrisy by the US, until they realize it's actually a six (6) nation issue and has little to do with the US.

Other than, of course, North Korea wanting to make it about only the US, so it's easy to walk away from the table and blame the US. That's why the two-party talks failed, and the six-party talks are working. It's no longer about the US being wrong, but North Korea -- because four (4) other countries, including China, are part of the talks, and what North Korea isn't living up to.

Obama recognizes this. I've also given Obama good, initial marks on handling the pirates off of the Somalia coast. Now we'll see where it goes from here, because it only gets harder. Hopefully he'll do us proud.

I will concede that the Dems pussed out of bringing a close to the Iraq War in 2007/2008. I still don't know why we're in these countries. Maybe to make Republicans feel good?
No, it's called pork for war support. It happened during Vietnam as well. The total decimation of Congressional approval polls after the Dems got double-majority shows that the American people recognize this as well.

I.e., they aren't offering any solutions.

So it's just more of this type of non-sense that keeps most people like myself from even being remotely hopeful that politicians will change. Because too many of the American people want to polay one-sided non-sense.

Hopefully Obama will bridge some issues, but we'll see. In any case, you've totally pegged him totally different than reality. But that's not uncommon when people blame one side completely, and hold the other side harmly (even if they are just as involved).
 
I'm honestly tired of the politics in general. I was tired with W. I'm even more tired after the Dems in 2007 (as were most Americans in the polls). And now it's just worse.

Apparently you missed the bombing of Iraq in 1998 and Clinton's War on Terror that really picked up in 1998.

W. decided to put boots on the ground, but that doesn't mean a lot of the intel wasn't from before. In fact, I was for going in 1998, but against in 2003, because the intel was so out-of-date (as inspectors were kicked out in 1998). But I blame W. for actually invading.

In any case, Iraq never disclosed anything, and that's reality. Would have we invaded in 2003 had the Democrats taken Congress? Probably not, and I would have been happy that we did not. Again, I thought 2003 was too little, too late.

But anyone who thinks we wouldn't be in Afghanistan because of various entities and what they were doing to western interests is not only overlooking history and fact, but actually Obama's own policy -- both before and after the election. I haven't heard a peep out of Obama being against Afghanistan or thinking it was unwarranted, quite the opposite.


No, it's called pork for war support. It happened during Vietnam as well. The total decimation of Congressional approval polls after the Dems got double-majority shows that the American people recognize this as well.

Americans were upset with Bush who many felt was out of control and the Republican Congress that rubber stamped his every whim. So voters did the only thing they could do which was turn Republicans out of congress. The voters elected Democrats to congress to reign in Bush, they did no such thing and that's why their poll numbers suffered.

Clinton and Iraq: All Clinton did was enforce pre-existing UN resolutions including responding to missile attacks and violations of the no fly zone. The only thing Clinton added to the Iraq discussion was a heavily lobbied for Iraq Liberation Act. Which PNAC lobbied for passage. Which largely relied on dubious claims of Iraq's WMD by our "good friend" Ahmed Chalabi. As a result, Clinton authorized Operation Desert Fox which was a 4 day targeted campaign against Iraq's theoretical WMD.

Inspectors were in Iraq just prior to our 2003 invasion under Blix. Blix's Feb 2003 report on Iraq WMD contradicted the vast majority of the Bush Administrations claims.Didn't matter, Bush had him bugged and wiretapped so they knew what he would present and how to argue against it. As far as the Bush administration invasion goes, that was just a continuation of strategy started under his father to reposition American forces from Europe (since the Cold War was theoretically over) to the new hot spot...the middle east and in their mind Iraq was the most fertile ground where we could go in under the guise of whatever and end up with a bunch of our troops stationed in the middle east. It didn't matter if Saddam only possessed a gallon of ammonia, that would have been the justification used to topple his regime.

Afghanistan was a righteous invasion as their government not only harbored fugitives of American justice, they fought along side of them.

Congressional approval ratings pt. 2: Again, making sure we understand what it suggests. They side with an unpopular president, their poll numbers go down. "Well, how do we know voters are just not unhappy with Democratic ideals..." Simple, they expanded their majorities in succeeding elections.
 
This is a rather silly thread..

Though amusing to read.

i agree it's good times. there's a lot of vaguely and overtly conspiratorial thought going on...good times. i don't think obama has 'fucked up' yet (it seems like he should at least get 25% of term before we start determining that). however, i do understand that the anti-tax folks are upset and bitter with him judging from the protests a couple days ago. i do wonder this tho: with the housing market in the shitter and corporations, individuals, states, and cities cities going broke...where should the government revenue come from?
 
however, i do understand that the anti-tax folks are upset and bitter with him judging from the protests a couple days ago.

What are they bitter at him for considering the overwhelming majority of the people who attended those ginned up gatherings actually got a tax cut that same day???

Consider this, the amount of people those rallies turned out amounted to be a little less than the amount of people who would show up at a general, political campaign event. So if the GOP said (using Fox and the other usual radio suspects as their means of getting the word out) they wanted to stage simultatenous gatherings all over the country to protest Obama, why wouldn't every GOPer who could show with their anti-Obama and anti-tax signs to make it appear to be something it wasn't?

That wasn't an American revolt as characterized by GOPer spinners. It was nothing more than a bunch of Republican rallies orchestrated to be held on the same day.

If the average person beyond the Fox crowd can't see through that shill then we are lost.
 

Philbert

Banned
What are they bitter at him for considering the overwhelming majority of the people who attended those ginned up gatherings actually got a tax cut that same day???

Consider this, the amount of people those rallies turned out amounted to be a little less than the amount of people who would show up at a general, political campaign event. So if the GOP said (using Fox and the other usual radio suspects as their means of getting the word out) they wanted to stage simultatenous gatherings all over the country to protest Obama, why wouldn't every GOPer who could show with their anti-Obama and anti-tax signs to make it appear to be something it wasn't?

That wasn't an American revolt as characterized by GOPer spinners. It was nothing more than a bunch of Republican rallies orchestrated to be held on the same day.

If the average person beyond the Fox crowd can't see through that shill then we are lost.

Too bad...some of your posts show thought and good info...but now you're just making stuff up and passing it off as something you know.

You made some BS assumptions, then answered your own question and completely missed that fact..
 
You made some BS assumptions, then answered your own question and completely missed that fact..

You're right, I did make assumptions (despite your characterizations of them) and I stand by them.

It is a fact that Fox through it's hosts and teaser promos disseminated the word of this event. It is a fact that GOPer radio hosts did the same things. Now if those 2 things are true, why would any reasonable person slightly cognizant of American politics assume anything but that the overwhelming majority of people who show for this thing are people who identify with Fox and GOPer radio in any event??

Just another political stunt which mutes out all legitimate beefs they may have with recent policy.
 
Top