one term.Neoteny wrote:
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.
Moderator: Community Team
one term.Neoteny wrote:
You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.
And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....Woodruff wrote:You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.

You don't have any idea what I was referring to, do you?Phatscotty wrote:And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....Woodruff wrote:You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.
Spock Fail
The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.
I'd say more old M.Woodruff wrote:You don't have any idea what I was referring to, do you?Phatscotty wrote:And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....Woodruff wrote:You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.
Spock Fail
The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.
Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.PLAYER57832 wrote:I'd say more old M.Woodruff wrote:You don't have any idea what I was referring to, do you?Phatscotty wrote:And if you were a true vulcan you would have responded there are 5 letters in Obama and only 4 years in a term....Woodruff wrote:You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.Phatscotty wrote: one term.
remember, as the worst, most dumbest stupidity stupid dummy president ever, GW got re-elected.
Every year that goes by, I add another letter in the name "Obama" to my handwritten list of one term presidents.
Spock Fail
The 5 letters to 4 year term ratio stands when U logicate 5 years worth of damage into 4 years.
Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.Woodruff wrote:Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.
I'd say more old M.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Is this some sort of Star Trek X-Men orchestrated hymns crossover?PLAYER57832 wrote:Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.Woodruff wrote:Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.
I'd say more old M.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
YesLOLMeDeFe wrote:Is this some sort of Star Trek X-Men orchestrated hymns crossover?PLAYER57832 wrote:Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.Woodruff wrote:Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.
I'd say more old M.
I thought his handling of the Panama Canal was fine. The Persian Gulf War was fine (I don't think long-term we can have it both ways, at least from a consistency in politics perspective - either you were for the Bush I limited war and then you are against the current conflict or you were for a Bush I total war and then you are for the current conflict). I guess I could go B or B-, but he wasn't a bad president, at least not like his son.BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have). I think some parts of his job creation act were really effective. Other parts, not so much. I disagree with the bailouts, but a Republican president would have done the same thing, so I can't really have a beef with President Obama on that one. I'm kind of disappointed about his lack of action on gay rights and the Patriot Act, but he has time for that stuff. I'd give him a C+ if I were grading him (Bush gets a D, Clinton gets a B-, Bush I gets a B+, Reagan gets an A for point of reference).
TGD, why would you rate Bush with a B+?
His handling of the Panama canal situation was very... blunt, to say the least. That and the Persian Gulf War by not allowing more time for Saudi Arabia to negotiate some kind of arrangement, and basically the poor handling of that war (in the long-term sense of things).
Of course, I'm overlooking domestic issues and some other things, so I'd like for you to enlighten me.
Only if you're Wolverine or a Vulcan.MeDeFe wrote:Is this some sort of Star Trek X-Men orchestrated hymns crossover?PLAYER57832 wrote:Sorry, Tide rivals. (intentional deflect).. at least it used to be so.Woodruff wrote:Now I don't have any idea what you are referring to.PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote: You Crimson Tide fans are all alike.
I'd say more old M.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Obama, no. The American people, though can and likely will.Phatscotty wrote:A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.
Reagan and Bush Sr. both better then Clinton? Clinton had the highest approval rating at the end of his term (even with the hugely overblown Lewinski thing) out of all the presidents post-war. Never mind getting into actual policy or legacy but I don't see how you can rate both of them (Bushalso being only a 1 termer) above him by some margin.thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have). I think some parts of his job creation act were really effective. Other parts, not so much. I disagree with the bailouts, but a Republican president would have done the same thing, so I can't really have a beef with President Obama on that one. I'm kind of disappointed about his lack of action on gay rights and the Patriot Act, but he has time for that stuff. I'd give him a C+ if I were grading him (Bush gets a D, Clinton gets a B-, Bush I gets a B+, Reagan gets an A for point of reference).
PLAYER57832 wrote:Obama, no. The American people, though can and likely will.Phatscotty wrote:A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.
Even the tea-partiers in many areas are having to agree that we need to be paying more, not less for certain things, like schools and health care. Folks are realizing that the REAL dupe was the Republicans who wanted nothing more than a big insurance industry wave.
I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).
Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....Phatscotty wrote:I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).
what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?Titanic wrote:Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....Phatscotty wrote:I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).
Yes, all I hear at the Tea Parties and in the emails is how we need to pay more for things. That is why we get together Player, to oppose lack of money being spent on things.PLAYER57832 wrote:Obama, no. The American people, though can and likely will.Phatscotty wrote:A few more pieces to the Repeal scenario have fit into place. The way this is looking, Obama will not be able to stop it from getting repealed.
Even the tea-partiers in many areas are having to agree that we need to be paying more, not less for certain things, like schools and health care. Folks are realizing that the REAL dupe was the Republicans who wanted nothing more than a big insurance industry wave.

What is truly amazing is his claim that things would be worse if he had not done what he did. He has absolutely no proof to back that up and it is pure speculation. He can't even tell us if the money he spend saved or created the jobs but yet he can give us the number of jobs it saved or created.Phatscotty wrote:I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).

... It's amazing. "The economy is up" says the Chicago thug, and the networks fall in line. Meanwhile, unemployment rises yet again and foreclosures set a new record.Phatscotty wrote:what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?Titanic wrote:Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....Phatscotty wrote:I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).
The recovery has begun, even though it's obviously hard to tell from driving down Main Street. There has always been a documented gap between when recessions begins ending and a decrease in unemployment numbers. The major thing is that, as companies begin hiring again, discouraged workers begin reentering the labor market, so that even as the population of total unemployed people decreases, the number of unemployed people looking for work increases.Nobunaga wrote:... It's amazing. "The economy is up" says the Chicago thug, and the networks fall in line. Meanwhile, unemployment rises yet again and foreclosures set a new record.Phatscotty wrote:what aspects of the "economy is on the up" are you using?Titanic wrote:Well the economy is on the up so maybe he did have the answers....Phatscotty wrote:I don't know. He told us what the problem with the economy was, and then said he had the answers. His answers were not correct. He can not now go back and say he did not understand the economy before. He should never have pretended that he could do anything about it in the first place..thegreekdog wrote:
I don't think we can judge President Obama with respect to economics yet (except for a few things I've already identified - namely the cost-benefit of the job creation act and the wanton spending of money that we don't have).
... I suppose it all depends on one's understanding of the term, "up".
...

Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.
Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Spazz Arcane wrote:If birds could swim and fish could fly I would awaken in the morning to the sturgeons cry. If fish could fly and birds could swim I'd still use worms to fish for them.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm on Team GabonX